Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

London, Midland, and Scottish Railway Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Wednesday, at half-past Seven of the clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

RIOTS, BOMBAY.

Mr. DAY: 1.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he can make any further statement with regard to the situation in Bombay; whether the hospital returns of the injured are now available; and can he give these returns?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): I am happy to say that the situation in Bombay is now, and has for some days, been normal. The hospital returns of injured are:


Pathans
…
83


Other Mohammedans
…
186


Hindus
…
462


Indian Christians
…
11


Parsi
…
1


Total
…
743

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is there to be a definite inquiry or not?

Earl WINTERTON: I do not know. That is a matter for the Bombay Government.

Mr. DAY: 2.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he has any statistics that will show the number of Pathans who reside in British India and the number who reside in Bombay, as at the last convenient date?

Earl WINTERTON: No, Sir. As I explained in answer to a somewhat similar question last Monday, the Pathan population in British India—by which I take it is meant Moslem natives of Afghanistan and the North-West Frontier Province—is a floating population, very few, if any, of whom remain away from their home districts throughout the year.

Mr. DAY: Are there any statistics that will show how many Pathans are in Bombay?

Earl WINTERTON: No, Sir. There is no reason why there should be statistics. The case is exactly similar to that of people from the North of England, Scotland, or Palestine or anywhere else coming to London. "Pathan" is a generic term applied rather loosely to natives of Northern India. There is no more reason why there should be a return of such people in Bombay than, for example, a return of Scotsmen or Jews in London, or any other place.

Mr. DAY: Can the Noble Lord say how long these Pathans reside in Bombay?

Earl WINTERTON: I think the hon. Gentleman will realise why I cannot possibly answer that question. The majority of them are British Indian subjects, and they travel about the country in the same way as people travel about in this country.

PROBATION OFFICERS.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: 3.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India how many full-time paid probation officers, and how many part-time paid probation officers, and how many voluntary probation officers have been appointed and are at present serving in the various provinces of British India?

Earl WINTERTON: Though the Indian Courts have power to release first offenders on probation of good conduct, there is no general system in India corresponding to that of the probation officers provided for by the Probation of Offenders Act, 1907, and the Criminal Justice Act, 1925. I cannot therefore give the figures asked for, but would refer the hon. Member to the information in the Jails Reports of the various
Provinces as to the working of unofficial Prisoners Aid Societies, particularly in Madras, and the action taken in the Punjab under the Good Conduct Prisoners Probational Release Act, 1926.

BUTLER COMMITTEE (REPORT).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 4.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether any action will be taken on the Report of the Butler Committee before its publication?

Mr. THURTLE: 12.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the House will be given an opportunity of considering the Report of the Butler Commission?

Earl WINTERTON: My Noble Friend must in the first place consider the report in consultation with the Government of India. Until he has had an opportunity of doing this, I am not in a position to make any further statement as to procedure.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will any action be taken before publication of the Report or may we take it that no action will be taken until we have had an opportunity of considering the Report?

Earl WINTERTON: I am afraid that I cannot add anything to the answer I have already given. I said that my Noble Friend was in consultation with the Government of India, and therefore no statement can be made at present.

EAST AFRICA (COMMISSION'S REPORT).

Mr. SNELL: 6.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether any appointment has been made in accordance with the decision announced by the Viceroy that an officer of the Indian civil service would be deputed to Kenya to represent the Government of India's view on the Hilton Young Report?

Earl WINTERTON: So far as I am aware the Viceroy has not yet nominated an officer.

LABOUR CONDITIONS (COMMISSION).

Mr. SNELL: 7.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India if he is yet in a position to make a statement concern-
ing the terms of reference and the full personnel of the Commission which, under the chairmanship of Mr. J. H. Whitley, is to inquire into certain matters connected with Indian labour?

Earl WINTERTON: I am afraid that I am not yet in a position to make a statement as my Noble Friend is still in communication with the Viceroy regarding the terms of reference and personnel.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Can the Noble Lord say whether membership of this Commission is to be confined to Members of the House of Commons or to persons in this country; or will it be possible to include in the personnel of the Commission such a man as Mr. Joshi?

Earl WINTERTON: That is a question which at present is under consideration by the Viceroy and my Noble Friend.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Will the Commission include men who understand something about Indian problems, and not merely people in this country who are not concerned with Indian problems?

Earl WINTERTON: That is exactly the question which has just been put to me. This matter is now under consideration.

PRIMARY EDUCATION.

Mr. SNELL: 8.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India what steps have been taken by the Government of India, in accordance with the resolution adopted by the Indian legislative assembly, asking for an inquiry into the existing facilities for primary education in India and to make proposals for the development of primary education in centrally administered districts?

Earl WINTERTON: I presume that the hon. Member refers to a resolution regarding the primary education of girls in certain districts. I have no information as to the action contemplated by the Government of India.

BURMA AND STANDARD OIL COMPANIES (LABOUR DISPUTE).

Mr. KELLY: 9.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he will inform the House as to the present situation in the strike at the Sewree depot of the Burma and Standard Oil Companies?

Earl WINTERTON: I have no recent information, but a telegraphic report has been asked for.

Mr. KELLY: When does the Under-Secretary expect an answer?

Earl WINTERTON: We have telegraphed for a report, and I think it will be possible to have an answer very shortly.

MALAYA AND CEYLON (INDIAN IMMIGRANTS).

Mr. KELLY: 10.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India what provision if any, is made by the Government of India for legal aid to Indian labourers employed by the planters in Malaya and Ceylon in cases of dispute between the labourer and his employer?

Earl WINTERTON: My Noble Friend has no information as to whether legal aid has ever been given in such cases at the expense of the Government of India; but it is the duty of the Agents of the Government of India in Ceylon and in British Malaya to protect and advise Indian immigrants so far as is possible and the Report of the Agent in British Malaya for 1927 mentioned that he had given all possible help in several civil and criminal cases in which Indians were concerned.

Mr. KELLY: In view of the disadvantages at which these people find they are placed in these matters, will the Noble Lord give some instructions to assist them by providing legal aid and paying their expenses?

Earl WINTERTON: If the hon. Member suggests that they should have their legal expenses paid, I should not be prepared to give any such undertaking, at any rate without consultation with my Noble Friend. The hon. Member does not seem to realise that they have at their disposal these agents who can advise them in all matters on which they want advice.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can the Government of India take up the case of any native coolie who thinks that he is not getting justice, or are they limited to giving advice?

Earl WINTERTON: I think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had better put down a question, but the position of
the agent is that he can make representations to the local government in regard to any immigrant Indian who has not been properly treated, or where there has been a breach of the law.

NATIVE STATES.

Mr. THURTLE: 11.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India if the Government will set up a committee of inquiry for the purpose of inquiring into the alleged grievances of the subjects of the Native States of India.

Earl WINTERTON: The answer is in the negative.

Mr. THURTLE: In view of the responsibility of the Government for these matters and in view of the allegations of grievous maladministration in some of these States, do the Government not accept responsibility for inquiring into these questions?

Earl WINTERTON: That is a question which raises constitutional points of the greatest moment, but I must not be taken as accepting the premises in the hon. Member's question. Shortly, the answer is that the Government have no power to make a general inquiry into matters which lie exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Native States.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the Under-Secretary aware that serious allegations are being sent round to Members of this House, and would it not be fairer to all parties to investigate these allegations?

Earl WINTERTON: I do not think the hon. and gallant Gentleman heard my answer to this question. I said that the Government had no power to conduct a general inquiry into matters that lie exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Native States. The matter is very complicated and difficult and cannot he dealt with in answer to a question. The mere fact that accusations or complaints have been sent to Members of Parliament is no evidence that those complaints are justified. I receive all sorts of complaints which on examination are found to have no justification whatever.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it not a fact that progressive rulers welcome such inquiries to clear up matters?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Do I understand the Noble Lord to say that the Government are in a position to appoint a Commission to consider the grievances of the Princes, but they are not in a position to consider the grievances of their subjects?

Earl WINTERTON: It is impossible to give an answer upon matters of great constitutional moment in reply to supplementary questions, and I must be excused from doing so. The Government have no power to conduct such general inquiries as are suggested in the question. If specific cases are brought to the notice of the Government or the agents, the usual practice is to advise those in charge to conduct inquiries themselves.

FOREIGN-MADE CLOTH (HOUSE-TO-HOUSE COLLECTION).

Mr. PILCHER: 13.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India what precautionary measures, if any, are being taken for the preservation of law and order in India, in view of the new scheme for the organisation of volunteers throughout India and house-to-house collection of foreign-made cloth in towns and villages and its destruction in bonfires?

Earl WINTERTON: My Noble Friend thinks that it is not in the public interest to announce beforehand the exact steps that the authorities have in mind for dealing with possible disturbances.

Mr. PILCHER: Is my Noble Friend bearing in mind the fact that the last time this organisation was put into operation several thousand deaths resulted?

Earl WINTERTON: Yes, sir; my Noble Friend is fully aware of the evil consequences which followed from a previous organisation of the kind referred to, and for that reason, as I have told my hon. Friend, it is not considered desirable to announce what steps the Government are taking.

EAST AFRICA (HOOK-WORM DISEASE).

Sir ROBERT THOMAS: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress has been made in eradicating
hook-worm disease among the natives of East Africa; how many cases were successfully treated during 1928; and how many European medical workers are engaged in coping with this disease?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Amery): The Medical Departments of the East African Dependencies are fully alive to the importance of combating this disease. In addition to the ordinary activities of Medical Departments, special intensive campaigns against this disease have been undertaken in the past two years by the Medical Departments of Kenya and the Tanganyika Territory with encouraging results, and are still in progress. No returns of the number of cases successfully treated in 1928 are available, and such returns would in any case show only the number of cases treated at Government hospitals, and would not, indicate the scope or the success of the general efforts to control the disease. As regards the last part of the question, it is not possible to give any figure, as, while officers are from time to time deputed to undertake special work in connection with the disease, its treatment is part of the ordinary duties of all Government Medical Officers in the East African Dependencies.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE.

SETTLEMENT DEVELOPMENT (LOAN).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is considering the question of Palestine raising or guaranteeing a loan for the development of settlement in Palestine?

Mr. AMERY: No, Sir. In June last His Majesty's Government considered a proposal put forward by the Zionist Organisation that they should join with other Governments in guaranteeing a loan to promote Jewish settlement in Palestine. The Zionist Organisation were informed that His Majesty's Government, without finally rejecting the proposal, could not offer it any encouragement at that time. There has been no change in the position since then to lead His Majesty's Government to reconsider their decision.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: In view of the fact that Sir John Chancellor has gone there from Rhodesia, and has the question of settlement very much at heart, does not this change make it possible that His Majesty's Government might also change their views on this question?

Mr. AMERY: Sir John Chancellor has looked into the whole situation very thoroughly.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider asking the Government of Palestine for their views on this matter?

Mr. AMERY: They are considering the whole question of settlement all the time.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The question of a loan is vital to settlement, is it not

HAIFA HARBOUR WORKS (WAGES).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in connection with the Haifa harbour works, any rules have been laid down fixing a minimum wage for skilled or for unskilled labour which shall be sufficient to enable Jewish labour to live on their pay; and, if so, what are the general rules governing wages on, this public work?

Mr. AMERY: These and other questions affecting conditions of labour have been referred to the High Commissioner for further consideration, in the light of the decision that the works should be carried out departmentally.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has seen the terms of the contract for the construction of the harbour at Haifa; whether it is intended that the contract shall include a fair-wages clause; and whether, in the case of the work done by direct labour, it is intended that a proportion of Jewish workmen will be engaged?

Mr. AMERY: In view of the decision that the harbour works should be constructed departmentally, no question of contract at present arises. The answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does that mean that the wages paid will
enable the Jewish workmen to compete on fair terms as regards labour?

Mr. AMERY: That is just one of the points on which, as I said in answer to the previous question, I have invited the High Commissioner's consideration, In order to see what scale he can arrange to meet the object in view.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will he try to avoid any communal treatment of Arabs and Jews on the Haifa, harbour works; that is to say, the setting up of one rate of pay for the one nationality and another rate for the other nationality?

Mr. AMERY: The High Commissioner will endeavour, if possible, to arrange the scales in such a fashion as not to lay stress on that aspect of the matter.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Not to make invidious distinctions?

COLONIAL SURGICAL APPOINT MENTS.

Dr. DRUMMOND SHIELS: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that in one Colony certain surgical appointments are reserved for holders of the fellowship of a particular Royal College of Surgeons; whether this practice has the approval of the Colonial Office; and, if not, whether he will call the attention of the Colonial Government in question to the matter?

Mr. AMERY: I have been informed that in one of the Colonies there is a departmental regulation that has the effect of excluding from consideration for certain surgical appointments candidates other than holders of a particular surgical diploma. I do not think that assignment to particular technical posts can fairly be based on academic qualifications alone, to the exclusion of other qualifications such as experience, skill and personal suitability. I am inviting the attention of the Colonial Government concerned to the question.

CEYLON (CONSTITUTION).

Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONE: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can yet indicate the attitude of His Majesty's Government towards the
recommendations of the Donoughmore Commission of Inquiry concerning the constitution of Ceylon?

Mr. AMERY: I am not yet in a position to make any statement on the subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

CONSULAR SERVICE (IRAQ).

Captain CAZALET: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what would be the cost to the taxpayers of this country of setting up a Consul-General in Bagdad and appointing a Consul in Basra; and whether he contemplates taking any steps to establish the latter?

Mr. DOUGLAS HACKING (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I have been asked to reply. A salaried consulate was established at Basra on 7th January last. It is estimated that its annual cost will be about £3,000 a year. As regards Bagdad, I presume that my hon. and gallant Friend is referring to the cost of a salaried Consulate-General. On the basis of the expenditure at Basra, it is estimated that the cost would be approximately between £3,500 and £4,000 a year.

Captain CAZALET: Is it intended to set up unpaid consulships in Mosul and other cities in Iraq, where the state of trade demands it?

Mr. HACKING: I must have notice of any question of that kind.

IMPERIAL. WAR GRAVES COMMISSION.

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: 70.
asked the Secretary of State for War what is the number of temporary ex-Service men who are leaving the Imperial War Graves Commission, France, on completion of the work in connection with the British cemeteries; what number have already been found further posts in this country by the Joint Substitution Board; and what steps are being taken by his Department and the Joint Substitution Board, respectively, to obtain further employment for these officers in this country on completion of their work with the Imperial War Graves Commission?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): There
are still 240 temporary ex-Service men in France and Belgium who will be leaving the Commission before the establishment is on a permanent basis. Of those who were employed in France and Belgium and have already left the Commission's service, 55 have been found work by the Joint Substitution Board. To supplement the assistance given by the Board, which does not deal with industrial or gardening staff, the Commission set up in 1924 a special departmental committee which has already met with considerable success in finding work for discharged employ és.

IMPERIAL CONFERENCE.

Mr. COUPER: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether any decision has yet been reached regarding the Imperial Conference this year; and, if not, when it will be considered?

Mr. AMERY: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle, North (Sir N. Grattan-Doyle) on the 17th December last. At present I am not in a position to add anything to that reply.

EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.

Captain CAZALET: 23.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs what subsidy or other assistance is available to the migrant or his family from this country who desires to take up work other than agricultural work in Canada; and whether there is any difference in the granting of such subsidies to the individual who proceeds to take up a definite occupation or who desires to proceed to Canada in order to find occupation.

Mr. AMERY: All British migrants proceeding to Canada for the purpose of permanent settlement are eligible for the new £10 ocean passage rate which has been arranged with the steamship companies. The answer to the second part of my hon. and gallant Friend's question is in the negative.

Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKE: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if, in any scheme of Empire development, he will consider the advisability of pressing for some agreement with the
Dominions that migrants' national insurances (health and unemployment) shall not lapse but become operative in any of the Dominions so long as contributions are continued, giving the settlers similar benefits as obtain in the mother country?

Mr. AMERY: I would invite my hon. Friend's attention to paragraph 24 of the Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee appointed to consider the effect on Migration of Schemes of Social Insurance a copy of which I am having forwarded to him.

ANGLO-FRENCH NAVAL COM PROMISE (CANADA).

Commander BELLAIRS: 24.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether, seeing that at the Imperial Conference of 1926 it was agreed that where one part of the British Empire entered into negotiations with another country, when the negotiations were likely to affect other parts of the Empire all parts of the Empire should be duly advised, he will state why Canada was only informed of the Anglo-French naval compromise after some of the Governments of Foreign countries had received formal notification through our embassies?

Mr. AMERY: As has already been explained in reply to previous questions, in accordance with the procedure agreed at the Imperial Conference, 1926, for adoption in cases of this kind, the Dominion Governments were informed in advance of the intention of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom to enter into conversations with the French Government, with the object of adjusting the divergencies of view which were blocking progress in the Preparatory Commission on Disarmament. The telegrams announcing the result of these conversations were sent to His Majesty's representatives abroad and to Dominion Governments on 30th July and 1st August respectively.

Commander BELLAIRS: Has my right hon. Friend seen the speech of the Prime Minister of Canada, in which he stated that foreign Governments were informed of the results of the negotiations before the Dominion of Canada?

Mr. AMERY: If my hon. and gallant Friend will study my answer more
closely, he will see that the information was conveyed in the one case on the 30th July and in the other on the 1st August. I am sorry that there was an interval of a day or two between them.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Were the telegrams to the Dominion Governments sent for the purpose of asking for their observations, or simply to inform them that agreement had been reached?

Mr. AMERY: I should require notice of that question, but I think it was to inform them that only a provisional agreement had been reached, subject to the agreement of all the other Governments concerned.

Commander BELLAIRS: Were the Dominion Governments informed by telegraph?

Mr. AMERY: Yes, Sir.

IRISH FREE STATE (EX-BRITISH CIVIL SERVANTS).

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 25.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs why interest is not to be paid on the amount of the compensation awarded to ex-British civil servants in Southern Ireland from the date of their retirement, seeing that such compensation has, in accordance with the judgment of the Privy Council, been wrongfully withheld from them for a prolonged period and that they have lost the interest on the sum involved in many cases for several years?

Mr. AMERY: The point raised in my hon. Friend's question was examined before I replied to his question on the 20th February, but, after full consideration of all the relevant circumstances, the conclusion was reached that we should not be justified in making provision for the payment of interest on the additional sums now to be awarded by way of compensation to certain transferred Civil Servants in the Irish Free State.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of these ex-British Civil Servants retired as long ago as five years, and for that time have been kept out of their money to which the Privy Council held them to be entitled?

Mr. AMERY: As my hon. Friend will be aware, the actual sums in most of these eases are quite small.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is not that a very good reason why this grievance should be met, and interest paid on the money from the date of their retirement?

Commander OLIVER LOCKERLAMPSON: Is there any precedent for the refusal of interest for five years?

Mr. AMERY: I think that, on the contrary, in all these cases interest is not paid.

Mr. THURTLE: May we take it that this decision of the Government is always subject to reconsideration by the Cabinet?

Sir W. DAVISON: 26.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs what is the estimated amount which the British Government have agreed to pay by reason of the refusal of the Free State Government to pay the compensation which the Privy Council has held that ex-British Civil Servants in Southern Ireland are entitled to receive on retirement in accordance with Article X of the Anglo-Irish treaty?

Mr. AMERY: The amount to be refunded to His Majesty's Government in the Irish Free State in respect of additional compensation to certain transferred civil servants under the agreement referred to in the reply which I gave my hon. Friend on the 20th February is estimated at £31,000 in the present financial year. This represents payments in respect of those officers to whom awards of compensation have already been made: the question of what further sum will be payable will depend largely on the number of future awards of compensation which may be made in respect of officers giving notice of retirement before the 1st March next, and cannot, therefore, be precisely estimated yet.

Sir W. DAVISON: Then I understand that on all the claims that have been received so far the amount payable by the British Government is some £31,000.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

AIRCRAFT (TURKISH ORDERS).

Sir R. THOMAS: 28.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department
whether he is aware that there is a concerted effort in the new Turkey, both by the Government and by the people, to develop air communications to the fullest extent; whether any Turkish orders for aircraft have been placed in this country recently; and will he, through his Department, exert efforts to secure aircraft orders from that country?

Mr. HACKING: The answer to the first and third parts of the bon. Member's question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, I have no definite information, though I understand negotiations are proceeding.

Sir R. THOMAS: Will the hon. Gentleman endeavour to obtain the information?

Mr. HACKING: I have obtained much information, which has been transmitted to the various interests concerned, and I might also add that our manufacturers are very ably represented.

Sir R. THOMAS: Is it not the case that, whenever questions are put to the hon. Gentleman in connection with trade, he is never able to give us a definite answer?

IMPERIAL PREFERENCE (CANADA).

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: 29.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he has received any Report from His Majesty's Trade Commissioner in Canada respecting the change in the percentage of the cost of production required on British goods in order to obtain preferential import rates; and, if so, whether such Report has been given publicity in the Press?

Mr. HACKING: His Majesty's Senior Trade Commissioner in Canada has reported that no further change has been made in the conditions governing the entry of goods into Canada under the British preferential tariff. The whole matter is, however, still under discussion between the High Commissioner in Canada for the United Kingdom and the Canadian Government.

LADIES' SHOES (IMPORTS).

Sir WILFRID SUGDEN: 56.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give the figures of imported ladies' shoes from France, Germany, Belgium, and Czechoslovakia for the years ending 1926, 1927, and 1928, numbers and value?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Herbert Williams): The answer has been prepared in tabular form, and my hon. Friend will perhaps agree to my circulating it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir R. THOMAS: Will the hon. Member draw attention to this question of "imported ladies"?

Following is the answer:

The following table shows the total number and declared value of women's boots and shoes, wholly or mainly of leather, imported into Great Britain and Northern Ireland and consigned from the undermentioned countries during each of the years, 1926, 1927 and 1926.

Country from which consigned.
1926.
1927.
1928.



Dozen Pairs.


Imports consigned from:





France
37,594
38,786
41,034


Germany
22,550
25,149
15,390


Belgium
26,427
46,848
51,981


Czechoslovakia
61,854
87,739
60,831



Declared Values (£).


Imports consigned from:





France
312,542
325,182
362,506


Germany
72,649
72,663
47,129


Belgium
172,070
270,671
345,248


Czechoslovakia
234,520
313,911
262,968

EGGS (MARKING).

Mr. A. M. WILLIAMS: 30.
asked the Minister of Agriculture why the National Mark Committee has had to withdraw permission to use the national mark for eggs from certain individuals or depots?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): In only one case has the National Mark Committee taken action in the direction referred to by my hon. Friend. This was the case of a packer who had infringed the conditions of the scheme both in regard to grading and the nature of the packages used. His certificate of authorisation has not been revoked but has been suspended until such time as the National Mark Commit-
tee is satisfied that he is in a position to carry out satisfactorily all the requirements of the scheme.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Does this mean that the right hon. Gentleman's Department is keeping a close watch on the whole scheme and seeing that the national mark is not abused?

Mr. GUINNESS: Oh, yes. Both the Department and the Committee are doing everything in their power to keep up the reputation of the national mark by seeing that the grading and packing is guaranteed.

COTTON INDUSTRY (AMALGAMATION SCHEMES).

Sir W. SUGDEN: 57.
asked the President of the Board of Trade, if his attention has been drawn to the schemes for the reconstruction of the American cotton-spinning trade in Lancashire; and if he will state what he is prepared to do in respect of the various schemes and proposals before the country in regard to assistance for the American cotton-spinning trade in Lancashire?

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to the various schemes of amalgamation which are being discussed in connection with the American section of the cotton trade. The Government are watching with great interest all such developments and are glad to think that one scheme has already been launched. It is, I think, a most hopeful sign that it has been found possible to establish the Corporation in question without any financial assistance from the Government.

Sir W. SUGDEN: Will the Government assist, financially, or in any other way, any agreed proposals between employ és and employers in the American section of the cotton trade?

Mr. WILLIAMS: I cannot give any guarantee about financial assistance. I have already indicated our satisfaction that the scheme has been launched so far without any financial assistance.

ARTIFICIAL SILK INDUSTRY.

Sir JOHN POWER: 59.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how the production of British artificial silk yarn in 1928 compares with that in 1924?

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: The artificial silk yarn produced in the United Kingdom and chargeable with Excise Duty in 1928 amounted to 50,388,000 lbs. The output in 1924, as ascertained by the Census of Production, was 25,654,000 lbs.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

AGRICULTURAL LABOURERS.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 35.
asked the Minister of Agriculture how many agricultural labourers were unemployed on 1st February, 1929; and what steps, if any, have been taken to find employment for such men?

Mr. GUINNESS: No statistics are available of the number of agricultural workers unemployed. Instances have been reported to me but they are few in number and do not warrant special steps to provide temporary employment. If the hon. Member is aware of any cases of particular hardship I will have inquiry made as to whether any useful local action can be suggested.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that unemployment among agricultural workers is becoming more and more acute, and, in view of the fact that these men are outside the Unemployment Insurance Schemes, does he not think that some regard should be taken of the position and that some assistance should be given?

Mr. GUINNESS: I have for several weeks past, through the officials of the Ministry and other agencies, made special inquiry into this matter, and the result does not hear out the statement of the hon. Member.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Member not aware that in certain parts of Yorkshire where agricultural workers have been dismissed workers from other industries are being imported making the position of the agricultural workers more and more acute every week?

Mr. GUINNESS: No, I was not aware of that fact.

Sir HENRY CAUTLEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House where agricultural labourers are unemployed?

Mr. GUINNESS: In Cambridge, Norfolk, Suffolk, and the East Riding of Yorkshire there are a few agricultural workers out of employment, but I understand that it is not very much more than takes place in most years.

TRANSFER OF WORKERS.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 50.
asked the Minister of Labour how many workmen have been transferred to work upon the land as agricultural labourers since the Transference Board has been in existence?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): A number of men from the depressed areas have had agricultural employment, and particularly in the beet sugar industry, but complete statistics as to the number who have been effectively transferred into agricultural employment are not available.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether it would be possible to obtain the information sought in the question, and, if so, when ought a question to be put to him?

Mr. BETTERTON: The hon. Member will realise the difficulty that exists. A man may be transferred into agriculture, and he may quite easily have gone into some industrial occupation on his own account and therefore the difficulty arises as to which men have remained in agriculture and which men lave gone into other industries.

Mr. SKELTON: Is an effort being made to transfer to agricultural operations?

Mr. BETTERTON: I say in my answer that a number of men have been transferred from distressed areas to such employment.

Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKE: 41.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of miners who have been transferred to the city of Birmingham under the transference scheme up to the end of January; the number of those placed in work; and the number placed in training?

Mr. BETTERTON: The number of men from depressed areas who have been transferred direct through Exchange machinery to employment in the Birmingham area, from the Prime Minister's
appeal up to the 25th January, 1929, is 209. During the same period 378 men from depressed areas were admitted to the Birmingham Training Centre, and of those who have completed training 101 were placed in employment in the Birmingham area.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Can the hon. Member say how many unemployed working people have been transferred from Birmingham during the same period?

Mr. BETTERTON: No Sir, not without notice.

UNEMPLOYMENT FUND.

Mr. BATEY: 74.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total amount the Treasury has saved in its payments to the Unemployment Fund under the Economy Act, 1926
The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel): The saving to the Exchequer is estimated to amount to £14. millions up to the 31st March next.

Mr. BATEY: Is the hon. Member aware that the debt on the Unemployed Fund is increasing and that this amount to a large extent would wipe off that debt?

Mr. SAMUEL: I was not aware that those facts are as stated, but I will take note of the hon. Member's observations.

Mr. KELLY: 75.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is proposed to cancel any part of the debt owing to the Treasury in respect of advances to the Unemployment Fund?

Mr. SAMUEL: No, Sir. The Exchequer contribution to the unemployment insurance scheme is made by direct grant fixed by statute.

Mr. KELLY: In view of this heavy burden, may I ask whether some consideration will not be given to relieving industry and wages from this heavy payment?

Mr. SAMUEL: I do not think that has anything to do with the question put to me.

OFFICE OF WORKS (EMPLOYES).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 38.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for
the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, how many men are employed by the Office of Works; how does this figure compare with the same or near date last year; and what useful works of national importance has His Majesty's Office of Works initiated during the last few months in order to provide employment?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Vivian Henderson): No figures are available of the number of men employed by contractors working for the Office of Works. If the hon. and gallant Member's question refers to industrial staff, 3,103 were employed on 1st January, 1928, and 3,047 on 1st January, 1929. Early in January, however, certain relief works were beginning in the Royal Parks, to give temporary employment to about 700 additional men, of which number about 600 have a] ready been engaged.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Can the hon and gallant Gentleman say whether his Noble Friend will consider starting building operations again, and is he aware that this policy was very successfully carried out when Lord Melchett was First Commissioner?

SMALL HOLDINGS.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 36.
asked the Minister of Agriculture which counties have created any small holdings under the Smallholding and Allotments Act, 1926, with the figures for each county separately?

Mr. GUINNESS: As the reply contains a number of figures, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many smallholdings in the West Riding of Yorkshire have been set up since 1926?

Mr. GUINNESS: Two schemes; nine holdings.

Following is the answer:

The following Statement shows the number of approved schemes which have been carried out or are likely to be carried out by County Councils under the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1926:

County.
Number of Schemes
Area.
Number of Holdings.


England.

Acres.



Berkshire
3
98.844
7†


Bucks
1
74.881
1


Cheshire
5
745.383
21


Cornwall
1
23.421
1


Derbyshire
1
84 079
2


Devon
6
123.149
7*


Dorset
1
.300
1†


Essex
2
2.587
2*


Gloucester
2
38.632
9†


Hereford
1
218.131
9


Isle of Wight
1
182.162
7


Kent
1
44.794
9


Lancashire
1
288.575
35*


Lines.—Kesteven.
1
139.546
3


Middlesex
1
.837
1†


Norfolk
10
762.719
43†


Salop
2
455.711
13


Somerset
5
56.388
10†


Staffs
2
425.250
17


Suffolk, East
2
148.750
5*


Suffolk, West
1
93.292
1


Survey
3
1.197
3*


Wilts
3
182.181
6*†


Worcester
2
206.962
48


Yorks. E. Riding
1
26.844
4


Yorks. W.Riding
2
456.173
9


Total
61
4,880.788
274


Wales.





Anglesey
3
119.500
6*


Carmarthen
1
2.000
1†


Monmouth
1
326.706
8


Pembroke
1
.400
1*


Total
6
448.606
16


England and Wales Total.
67
5,329.394
290‡


* Includes cottage holdings.


† Includes additions to existing holdings.


‡ Includes 23 cottage holdings and 25 additions to existing holdings and also 18 holdings previously provided on leased land which two Councils (Norfolk and Wilts.) have now purchased or re-hired.

Note.— A few schemes carried out by Councils without the aid of a contribution from the Minister are not included, no detailed particulars of such schemes being available.

The statement does not include holdings provided by means of advances by Councils under Section 13 of the Act.

FISHING INDUSTRY (CREDITS).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 37.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has given further examination to the possibility of granting credits to the fishing industry either by some such scheme as that introduced for agricultural credits or by other suitable methods; what form of inquiry has been made into this matter; and what are his conclusions?

Mr. GUINNESS: I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton) on the 13th February, a copy of which I am sending to the hon and gallant Member.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that does not quite answer the second part of the question, and that in that reply he said that the Hull Trawlers' Association passed a resolution that credits were neither needed nor desirable?

Mr. GUINNESS: We have made inquiries, but not altogether of a formal nature. We have opportunities in the Ministry of finding out the real needs of fishermen for credit.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman now have a formal inquiry made through his Department?

Mr. GUINNESS: I do not think that that is necessary.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment on Monday.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman receive representations from any section of the fishing industry, and if they come with a scheme, will he consider it?

Mr. GUINNESS: Yes, I will gladly go into any proposal that may be brought forward, or any case that may be set before me.

STATUTORY RULES AND ORDERS.

Sir JOHN MARRIOTT: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is prepared
to propose to Parliament the setting up of a Sessional Joint Committee to scrutinise all Statutory Rules and Orders issued by His Majesty's Privy Council or by public departments and, if deemed necessary by the Committee, to report thereon to Parliament?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I appreciate the purpose which my hon. Friend has in mind and I have noted his suggestion.

STANDING COMMITTEES (PROCEDURE).

Commander BELLAIRS: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of experience of Standing Order No. 27a giving powers to the Chair to select new Clauses or Amendments in the House and in Committee of the Whole House, and in view of difficulties experienced on Standing Committees, he will negotiate through the usual channels in order that a Resolution may be expeditiously passed extending these powers to Chairmen of Standing Committees?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford University (Sir C. Oman) on the 18th May, 1927.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH.

RADIUM (CIVIL RESEARCH SUB-COMMITTEE).

Mr. R. MORRISON: 47 and 48.
asked the Prime Minister (1), the names of the members of the Radium Sub-Committee of the Committee of Civil Research and the date of their appointment;
(2) how many meetings have been held by the Radium Sub-Committee of the Committee of Civil Research; what was the date of the last meeting; and whether he has now been informed when their Report will be completed?

Mr. PILCHER: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Report of the Civil Research Committee's investigation of radium resources in the British Isles or elsewhere within the British Empire has yet been received; and, if so, whether the results will be made public and when?

THE PRIME MINISTED: It would be contrary to established practice to give particulars.of the compostition or proceeding of sub-committees of the committee of civil Research I understand that the sub-committee hope to submit their Report within the next few weeks, when it will at once be considered by the Government.

Mr. MORRISON: May I take it that the names of the personson who serve on theis committee?

The PRIME MINISTER: No, that is a matter of practice, never given either in regard to that or to the Committee of Imperial Defence. They are both regarded as sub-committees of the Cabinet.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will their report be published?

The PRIME MINISTER: In the same way, the reports are not published, but, of course, in a matter of this kind which is of very great interest to the House, I will take care by whatever may be the best means to communicate to the House the general results.

Commander BELLAIRS: When the Government consider this matter, will they also consider the proposal which I brought before the Ministry of Health that the whole question should be brought before the League of Nations?

Mr. PILCHER: Is the Committee considering the sources of supply in these Islands?

The PRIME MINISTER: I should require notice of that question. I understand that the hon. Member's constituency might have something to say to that.

Mr. KELLY: Does this Committee take evidence with regard to this country and particularly with regard to the radium bearing districts of Cornwall?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think that it is a very competent Committee, and I do not think they are likely to overlook any sources of information.

Mr. MORRISON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the attention of the Committee was drawn two months ago to the possible sources of supply in
these islands, and that beyond the acknowledgment of the communication nothing further has been heard?

The PRIME MINISTER: I honestly cannot see what the hon. Member would expect at this moment. I am much obliged to him for drawing attention to it.

POISONS AND PHARMACY ACTS (COMMITTEE'S REPORT).

Sir W. SUGDEN: 54.
asked the Minister of Health when the Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on the Poisons and Pharmacy Acts will be available, as its finding are essential to certain improvements in the interests of public convenience and health matters generally?

Sir V. HENDERSON: I have been asked to reply to this question. I understand that the Chairman of the Committee expects that the Committee's Report will be submitted to the Lord President of the Council in the spring or early summer.

RICKETS, SOUTH WALES.

Dr. VERNON DAVIES: 55.
asked the Minister of Health if he can state what steps he is taking to deal with cases of early rickets in the distressed mining areas of South Wales and Monmouthshire; and if he is satisfied that these measures are adequate for all possible needs in the near future?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): The measures taken to prevent the onset of rickets 'and to deal with such cases as arise are a matter, in the first instance, for the maternity and child welfare authorities of these areas. My right hon. Friend is advised that the authorities are alive to the importance of this matter, 'and he has recently sanctioned increased expenditure on the supply of milk to expectant and nursing mothers and young children in these areas.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Is this milk deducted by the guardians from the amount of relief given to the families?

Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir. There is no deduction in these areas.

Dr. DAVIES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that rickets persist after the
end of five years, and will he communicate with the authorities, to see that these cases are followed up after five years?

Sir K. WOOD: I will look into that question.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in a report submitted by the South Wales Mining Association it is definitely stated that the departmentally appointed Commissioners were responsible for a reduction in the amount of benefit for Poor Law relief, and that that has contributed to a large number of cases of rickets?

Sir K. WOOD: I am not aware of that report.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when I was in this area I was informed by the guardians that they had cut down the amount of relief to families, when milk was given for children?

Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir. I cannot understand that, because there was no reduction made in the Estimates with respect to milk in distressed areas.

Miss WILKINSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the question is not whether the Department made a reduction, but whether it is a fact that the Commissioners in that area and the Poor Law authorities deducted from the relief given to families the cost of milk given to mothers.

Sir K. WOOD: I am not aware of that fact. There certainly have not been any instructions given by my Department to that effect.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: Is it not the case that far more relief is being given now than in 1924?

Dr. DAVIES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is not simply a question of shortage of food, but also of the improper foods which the children are having?

Sir K. WOOD: I would remind my hon. Friend that a report which has just been issued and made available to Members of this House states that to a great extent the disease has been controlled and cured by means of maternity and child welfare services.

POST OFFICE (CASH-ON-DELIVERY SERVICE).

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 51.
asked the Postmaster-General what use is being made of the cash-on-delivery system; and whether he has received any representations respecting the extension or alteration of the Regulations?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): The inland cash-on-delivery service is growing steadily. The number of packets of all kinds posted during the calendar year 1928 was, in round figures, 1,860,000, as compared with 1,520,000 during the previous year. During the last three months of 1928 12,346 consignments were despatched under the cash-on-delivery arrangements made with the railway companies. I have not recently received any representations respecting any important extension or alteration of the Regulations. If my hon. Friend has any particular point in mind, I shall be glad to consider it.

Captain GUNSTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much agricultural produce is being sent through the cash-on-delivery system?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I am afraid I cannot say that, but if my hon. Friend will put down a question I will ask the railway companies.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: Would it be possible for the Postmaster-General to advertise the cash-on-delivery system?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I have asked the railway companies, and I believe that they do what they can.

Mr. AMMON: Could not the right hon. Gentleman use the stamps for that purpose?

VALUATION LISTS.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 52.
asked the Minister of Health whether in all areas the valuation lists which are to come into force on 1st April have been deposited by the local authorities?

Sir K. WOOD: The information in the possession of the Central Valuation Committee is not quite complete, but my
right hon Friend understands that they are not aware of any cases in wich a draft list has not been deposited.

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCANTILE MARINE.

CREWS' SPACES,

Dr. DAVIES: 58.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that during the years 1917 and 1918 certain amenities with regard to the hygiene of crews' spaces were enforced in standard ships; and will ho state whether these same amenities are still enforced by the Board of Trade?

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: The crew space arrangements on standard ships during the War were to some extent in excess of the Regulation requirements of that time, and the present improved requirements are frequently exceeded on ships built now.

Mr. KELLY: Do these conditions apply to the vessels of Trinity House?

Mr. WILLIAMS: I must have notice of that question.

SAFETY REGULATIONS (MEDITERRANEAN CRUISES).

Sir J. POWER: 60.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the following ships, namely, s.s. "Theophile Gautier," s.s. "Asia," and s.s. "Stella D'Italia," engaged by the Hellenic Travellers' Club for its Mediterranean cruises, are on the British register; if not, can he state their respective nationalities; whether any of these ships have British passenger certificates; and whether they are required to comply with British safety regulations?

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: The first vessel is French, the second is either French or Italian, and the third is Italian. They are not subject to British regulations and do not hold British certificates.

Sir J. POWER: Can the hon. Member say whether this is an ordinary tourist agency, or if a bonâ-fide club. Can he say whose identity the title conceals?

Mr. WILLIAMS: I am afraid that I am not in a position to answer that question.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (DENTAL BENEFIT, SCOTLAND).

Mr. JOHNSTON: 61.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if insured persons in Scotland have a choice of dentist when receiving dental benefit; and, if so, under which clause or regulation?

The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. William Watson): Under paragraph 4 of Schedule C of the Scheme of Additional Benefits of an approved society providing dental benefit, an insured member is entitled to obtain dental treatment from any registered dentist who is willing to provide the treatment in accordance with the terms of the schedule and on the scale of fees, if any, for the time being recognised by the Committee of Managment of the society. Where, however, the work or conduct of a dentist has been declared to be unsatisfactory a society may notify their members that that dentist is excluded from giving treatment under the schedule.

Mr. JOHNSTON: In point of fact, it really is the case that there is no choice of dentist unless with the approval of the Committee of Management of the society?

The LORD ADVOCATE: I would rather put it the other way. There is no exclusion unless there is specific exclusion by the society.

LIGHT AEROPLANE CLUBS (ASSISTANCE).

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: 62.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is prepared to grant, under similar conditions, to established flying clubs, as for example the Lancashire Aero Club, the same Government assistance as that which he proposes to grant to National Flying Services, Limited, for the training of pilots?

The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Samuel Hoare): The 13 subsidised light aeroplane clubs, including the club mentioned by my hon. Friend, are already receiving Government assistance on a much more liberal scale than that proposed for National Flying Services, Limited, while they are under no similar obligation as regards the provision and maintenance of a chain of aerodromes and landing grounds as a condi-
tion of the grant of the subsidy. No change is contemplated in the agreements under which the existing light aeroplane clubs are subsidised.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are quite a number of undertakings which specialise in this type of flying, and are successful and expanding, and does he think that it is fair that they should be subject to Government subsidised competition?

Sir S. HOARE: I think that had better be discussed on the Air Estimates, but may I say in a single sentence, in reply to the hon. Member, that under the National Flying Services, Limited, the subsidy for pilots is £10 per pilot, whereas at present we are paying to the light aeroplane clubs £10 to £50 per pilot.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: Is it not a fact that the subsidy is shortly to come to an end?

Sir S. HOARE: No. The agreements run in most cases for nearly two years further.

COAL INDUSTRY (STEEL PIT PROPS).

Commander BELLAIRS: 63.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether, in view of the proportion of coal that enters into the making of steel, any steps on a large scale are being taken to substitute British-made steel pit props for the Foreign pit-wood props now import ed by our coal mines?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Commodore Douglas King): and other advantages of steel supports are being closely investigated and kept prominently before the coal mining industry. The use of steel supports is steadily developing though, taking the industry as a whole, it is not yet on a large scale.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. and gallant Member aware that steel props in coal mines are infinitely more dangerous than ordinary wood props, and will he, instead of encouraging, discourage the use of what is known to be more dangerous to life and limb than timber props?

Commodore KING: I cannot accept that as a general proposition.

Mr. WILLIAMS: The hon. and gallant Member would do so if he worked in a pit.

Lieut.-Colonel LAMBERT WARD: Can the hon. and gallant Member give the comparative cost of the steel props and the wooden props which have been in use hitherto?

Commodore KING: Not without notice.

Mr. BATEY: When the hon. and gallant Member says that the use of steel props is developing, can he say in which area or in which colliery that development is taking place?

Commodore KING: Not without notice.

NAVAL AND MILITARY GRANTS AND PENSIONS.

Miss WILKINSON: 64
asked the Minister of Pensions (1) what is the number of occasions since 1920 upon which writing assistants employed by his Department upon the examination of life certificates have appeared in the Courts to give evidence on behalf of the Ministry in connection with prosecutions for fraud, and in connection with which they have had to swear that they had authorised payment of pension or other sums of public money because they had been deceived by a claimant;
(2) what is the number of occasicns since 1920 upon which writing assistants, employed by his Department upon the examination of life certificates, have bad to sign the form referred to as Statement from officer deceived, which declares that a payment was authorised which, if the claimant had declared the actual fact, would not have been authorised?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Lieut.-Colonel Stanley): No records have been kept of the number of occasions referred to, but it has been necessary in a certain number of cases since 1920 for writing assistants to sign statements and give evidence in cases of prosecution for fraud where they have, in the formal process of checking forms, been deceived by false attestations on the part of pensioners and, consequently, the payment of a sum or sums due under the terms of an award already made by higher authority has been continued automatically.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISTRESSED AREAS.

LORD MAYOR'S FUND.

Mr. BATEY: 67.
asked the President of the Board of Education what is the total amount subscribed to the Lord Mayor's Fund, the amount paid by the Treasury, and the total amount disbursed from the fund for the relief of distress?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): Up to the 22nd February, 1929, the total amount subscribed to the Lord Mayor's Fund was £698,723, the amount paid into the Fund by the Treasury £150,000, and the amount disbursed from the Fund £440,871.

Mr. BATEY: As the policy of the Government is to pay pound for pound, will the right hon. Gentleman say why the Government are so slow in paying up?

Lord E. PERCY: Because the House of Commons has not voted any further money.

Mr. BATEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why the Government have not asked the House of Commons for more money?

Lord E. PERCY: That is a question of business and should be addressed to the Leader of the House.

Mr. SHINWELL: Is it the intention of the Government to come to the House of Commons and ask for this further supple?

Lord E. PERCY: Certainly.

Mr. SHINWELL: Will the Noble Lord say when the Government propose to ask for this money?

Lord E. PERCY: The hon. Member cannot have heard what I said. Any question as to public business of the House should be addressed to the Leader of the House.

Miss WILKINSON: Is the President of the Board of Education not aware that the delay of the Government in paying 119 their share to this fund, according to the Prime Minister's promise, is having a bad effect on the appeals which are being made to the country?

Lord E. PERCY: I am not aware of that fact, and I do not think it is the case.

Mr. SHINWELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman make representations to the Prime Minister on this matter?

DOMESTIC SERVICE (TRAINING).

Sir PHILIP RICHARDSON: 68.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that there are many daughters of miners and other unemployed persons willing to enter domestic service, but owing to lack of training are only able to fill minor posts; and whether consideration has been given to the desirability of allocating some portion of the miners' distress fund to assisting girls to obtain training in cooking in the London County Council continuation or other schools to enable them not only to obtain well paid employment after a few months' training, but also to benefit them permanently in after life?

Lord E. PERCY: Training centres for domestic workers are conducted by the Central Committee for Women's Training and Employment, in conjunction with the Ministry of Labour, in all the depressed mining areas, and I understand that the centres already in operation are thought sufficient to meet the local demand. My hon. Friend's suggestion will, however, be given careful consideration.

METROPOLITAN POLICE (SEVERE WEATHER).

Mr. DAY: 71.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that in Leeds and other provincial centres constables on point duty during the recent cold spell have been supplied with hot coffee; and can he state whether any similar arrangements exist within the Metropolitan Police area?

Sir V. HENDERSON: At the commencement of the recent severe weather special instructions were issued with regard to the relief of officers performing traffic duty and those posted at exposed points, but no special arrangements were made for the supply of hot coffee.

Mr. DAY: Can the Under-Secretary say how much relief was given to officers during the intense cold?

Sir V. HENDERSON: Not without notice.

GOLD (STABILISATION).

Sir R. THOMAS: 73.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the continual economic disturbance caused by fluctuating rates of credit, he will take early steps to reopen international discussion of the question of stabilising the value of gold, as recommended by the Genoa Conference?

Mr. SAMUEL: I would refer the hon. Member to the replies given to the hon. Member for West Leicester (31r. PethickLawrence) on the 13th November and the 6th December last, of which I am sending him copies. He will see that the problem is under consideration by the Financial Committee of the League of Nations.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVY ESTIMATES, 1929.

Estimate presented, for the Navy for the year 1929 [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed.

Oral Answers to Questions — SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE A.

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Member to Standing Committee A (in respect of the Reconstituted Cream Bill): Mr. Guinness.

Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee: That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A: Sir Sydney Henn; and had appointed in substitution: Major Alan McLean.

Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A (added in respect of the Reconstituted Cream Bill): Captain Gunston; and had appointed in substitution: Captain Briscoe.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.

Considered in Committee. [Progress 22nd February.]

[9TH ALLOTTED DAY.]

[Mr. DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair]

NEW CLAUSE.—(Audit and Accounts.)

(1) The provisions set out in the Third Schedule to this Act shall have effect with respect to the audit of the accounts of every county council and of every town council, and the provisions of any enactment so far as inconsistent with the provisions of the said Schedule shall cease to have effect.

(2) The statutory provisions with respect to accounts and budget applicable to a county council or a town council shall apply as regards all functions transferred to the council by or under this Act.—[The Lord Advocate.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. William Watson): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a, Second time."
I feel sure that it will be for the convenience of the discussion if we are also able to scrutinise the details of the Schedule at the same time, because obviously this new Clause and the Schedule should he considered together. Therefore, with your leave, Mr. Chairman, I propose to deal with the question broadly, not only in regard to the new Clause but also in regard to the Schedule which is referred to in the new Clause.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am not sure how far the right hon. and learned Gentleman can scrutinise the Schedule in detail at the moment. I notice that there is an Amendment down to the proposed new Clause but no Amendment to the Schedule. It will be difficult, however, to discuss the Clause without discussing the Schedule and the Committee will no doubt generally agree that I should allow a general discussion on the points which arise on the new Clause and on the Schedule so far as they concern or affect the proposed new Clause.

The LORD ADVOCATE: The purpose of the new Clause is to get a uniform system of auditing accounts throughout
all these local authorities, both in town and county, which are being constituted or-retained under the scheme of the Bill. At the present time in the Local Government Act, 1889, there is a provision, the main lines of which we have adopted in drawing the Schedule to this Clause. Under that Act, the auditor is an, independent auditor and appointed by the Secretary of State. His remuneration is approved by the Secretary of State. Then with regard to the question of objection to the accounts, the system at present is rather different in the case of the burghs from what it is under the county code. Under the county code there is a right to the auditor to surcharge. As far as I know the right of surcharge does not exist in any of the burghs' statutory provisions, but there is a right there to the ratepayers to appeal to the sheriff against any item in the accounts to which they take objection. We think this is a matter which would be more conveniently dealt with by means of administrative audit, and that the right of appeal as to the counties should be to the auditor, and that a right of surcharge should be inserted.
Two important additions have been, made in the Schedule with regard to the right of surcharge, and one of them is very important. That is the right to the Secretary of State, if there is any question of law involved in the matter of surcharge, to state a case and to take the opinion of the Court of Session in order that that may he judicially determined by the Court. Sometimes very important questions arise. He will have to follow, and will willingly follow, the decision in the matter. There is another point with regard to surcharge. The Committee will note in paragraph 9 of the Schedule a provision which I hope will be found very satisfactory. Of course it was never intended that a member of a town council who bona fide agreed to a payment, should be surcharged. Although that was, implicit in the paragraph already drafted, it was agreed, on the suggestion of the Town Clerk of Edinburgh, to make the matter clear. It is only right that when a man elects to become a town councillor he should know what are his liabilities to surcharge, and we have thought it right to make that matter clear, which, is done in paragraph 9.
Another question is this: We are retaining the separate or additional audit, the Departmental audit of the Education Department. On a previous occasion I have explained the reason why it is considered wise, and indeed necessary, to retain this arrangement. As hon. Members are aware, a great deal of the education money is in the shape of grants, which are given for a particular purpose and are regulated by Departmental minutes. These minutes are very frequently the subject of alteration, and it is vital that someone who is constantly up to date and familiar with the Departmental minutes should be in a position to check the educational expenditure. It will involve nothing beyond what is done now. At the present time every education authority has a cash auditor of its own, and the Departmental audit is in addition to that. It has never been found a trouble at all. On the contrary the ordinary cash auditor rather welcomes the expert assistance of the Departmental auditor, who knows all these matters. Thereby uniformity of administration is secured. But in another sense you avoid uniformity, because in a matter like bursaries it is important that the administration should he varied in different districts, and that is a matter over which the Department has control. The officials at any rate both of Edinburgh and Glasgow Corporation, welcome the retention of this educational Departmental audit.
Hon. Members who know Glasgow will remember that there was at one time a good deal of trouble there—I remember it well as a lawyer—concerning the production of vouchers. Glasgow got a Clause in one of their local Acts which enabled a ratepayer to get access to the vouchers after he had tabled his objection. In other words he was enabled to have access to the vouchers in order that he might prove his case before the sheriff. Some may say, Why not put that provision in here? The answer is obvious. The sheriff is out of it, and the person who will in future deal with the objection will be the auditor himself. The auditor already has access to and control of all these vouchers; he has all the material at his hand already.
I see that there is an Amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) to
provide that Articles 1 and 2 of the Schedule shall not apply to Glasgow. As far as I know the only difficulty between us and Glasgow is as to whether there should be insistence on having one auditor only for Glasgow. We have met the other points with regard to the power to vary times and other things. With regard to objections, there is on the Paper an Amendment in a revised form of paragraph 3, which will suit the convenience of different areas. I saw my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State yesterday, and he authorised me to say that he will not insist, in the case of Glasgow, in having only one auditor. If he can persuade the Corporation to agree, that is another matter, but he will not insist against their wishes. It is a matter for discussion, because the terms of the Schedule leave it quite open; the words there used are "one or more." How far that applies to an Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Benn) I do not know, because so far Aberdeen has not made any representations to us of any kind against the Clause. That city has more than one auditor. Dundee used to have more than one, but has now only one.

Sir ROBERT HORNE: I confess that the question raised by the proposed new Clause has perturbed Corporation of Glasgow greatly. As one can imagine, Glasgow, with all its ramifications of interests and its great population, presents a task in connection with the auditing of its accounts such as is presented by no other town in Scotland, and probably by no town in England except London. Accordingly it requires exceptional treatment. In order to give the Committee an idea of the problem in Glasgow, may I say that Glasgow in the past, appointing its own auditors according to its own system, has employed in its rating departments, 14 auditors and in its non-rating departments, 11 auditors or 25 in all. When we come to examine how many days have been spent on this business, we realise the size of the undertaking. The principal auditors spent 116 days in their task in the rating departments, and their assistants were occupied 1,834 days. In the non-rating departments the principals of these firms were employed for 616 days and the assistants for 1,003
days. Accordingly you have the principal auditors working for 177 days in the year and 2,837 days spent by the assistants. There is no scheme by which this task could be put into the hands of one auditor. I daresay a number of important firms are conducting this work and no one of them could keep a staff sufficient to carry on the work which is necessary throughout the year and to do the audit in the few weeks at their disposal.
It is only by having an enormous staff under one auditor and splitting it up over the whole year, that one could succeed in making an organisation competent, to do the business properly. Furthermore, the books of the Corporation are not available every day in the year. There are times when people are on holidays. There are rush times. There are periods when people are working on the books in the ordinary course of business, and when the books are not available to any auditor. Therefore, you must have a system in Glasgow which will suit Glasgow's particular circumstances. Glasgow has done this work in a manner corresponding to its usual activity in matters of business. Under the present system they are able to have the audit complete in six weeks with the result that they have their accounts available at the end of the year so as to inform the minds of the people who, are dealing with the estimates for the following year. I hope nothing will be done to interfere with the efficacy of this system in Glasgow. I do not feel that at the moment, or until I get some further assurances, I can be content with the new Clause as composed by the Lord Advocate. To say "one or more auditor" may mean anything, and I must have some assurance that this proposal is not going to mean that a sole auditor will be called upon to do this work.
We want to ensure that it will be possible to have a body of auditors who will be competent to carry out this task with the same efficiency as has been shown in the past. I do not know what the Lord Advocate will say on this matter, but I would point out to him that Glasgow has been accustomed to appointing its own auditors. This power is being taken away on the principle of estab-
lishing some system of uniformity. That is a great deal for Glasgow to give up, but it is possible that we might succumb, even to that suggestion, if we were assured in regard to other matters. There is one thing, however, we must be assured of, and that is that we shall get a system which will enable us to carry out this important business with the same efficiency as in the past. For the moment, I am not prepared to withdraw the Amendment standing in my name until I understand better what the Scottish Office propose to do in the matter.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to move his Amendment?

Sir R. HORNE: I understand we are taking part in a general discussion at the moment. When it comes to the appropriate time I shall certainly be prepared to move my Amendment.

Mr. JAMES STEWART: I support the position taken up by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne). Glasgow is in a special position among all the municipalities of Britain in regard to the amount of money which it handles. Last year it had to deal with something like£22,000,000. Its rates amount to £7,000,000 annually, and long experience has impressed upon both members and officials of the corporation the necessity of employing a number of auditors—men who are trained in business, and capable of undertaking the responsibility of looking after the city's finances in this respect. Neither the Government, nor members of the community have ever called in question this method of dealing with the city's money. As far as I am aware, there has never been any charge of malfeasance or of wrongdoing against any official or member of the corporation in this connection. As the right hon. Gentleman has said, there is a very short time available for the audit. The audit has to be finished before 1st June every year and the accounts made public by that date. This is in order that the accounts may be properly presented to the council, after the vacation in July, so that the rating proposals may be given effect to and we may begin to collect our rates about the beginning of October.
The Government's proposal would do the City of Glasgow considerable injury in regard to its accounting. It would delay matters and prevent us from getting ahead with the business in the way I have described. I hope the Government will give effect to what is the unanimous desire of the corporation, without regard to party, in this matter. This is not a party question in the Glasgow Corporation and we do not desire that it should become a party question. There are 27 auditors at present and their contention—which I support—is that One auditor will not suffice if the work is to be as well done in the future, as it is done under the present system Speaking, not on be-half of the corporation, but for myself, I object to the diversion of patronage from the corporation to the central authority. They will probably appoint a man from Edinburgh. On one occasion when I was a member of the parish council, they appointed an auditor from Edinburgh who did not know the City of Glasgow, and its requirements, and who did not know anything about parish council work there. I personally object to this proposal. I think the patronage which the Secretary of State already has, is more than enough and I do not want him to have any more. We have no objection to the education authority audit, or the parish council audit remaining as it is, but we desire that the Corporation of Glasgow, which has managed its business so well in the past, should be left free to continue its present system.

4.0 p.m.

The LORD ADVOCATE: At the present moment, as the hon. Gentleman has just admitted, in the case of Glasgow it is true that the council can appoint a person approved by the Secretary of State, and therefore at the moment there is very little in that point. But I appreciate the point raised by my right hon. Friend and referred to by the hon. Member opposite, and I appreciate also that the difficulty is partly, if not largely, caused by the difficulty of consulting my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State with regard to this question. My right hon. Friend knows that we do not desire to do anything against the wishes of
Glasgow. We saw representatives of Glasgow and discussed this question and one or two other points on the Clause, and we agreed on every one except that one. If my right hon. Friend will not press his Amendment to the proposed new Clause, I will undertake to get in touch with Glasgow before the Report stage, and ascertain whether they are satisfied with the assurance I have given or not, and then the matter can be raised again if necessary.

Sir R. HORNE: In view of the assurance of my right hon. and learned Friend that the matter will be considered between now and the Report stage, I will not move the Amendment to the proposed new Clause which is down in my name.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Division of counties into districts and establishment of district councils.)

(1) For the purposes of the provisions of this Act relating to district councils, the reconstituted county council of every county shall, on or before the first of day of February, nineteen hundred and thirty, prepare and submit to the Secretary of State, for his approval a scheme (in tins Section called a "district council scheme") dividing the landward part of the county into districts in such manner that each district shall comprise one or more electoral divisions, and the provisions of Sub-sections (1), (4), (5) and (6) of Section fourteen of this Act shall with the necessary modifications apply to schemes under this Subsection and any new scheme altering the boundaries of a district nay make provision for financial adjustments, and for doing anything which may be required or be expedient for the proper carrying into effect of the new scheme.
(2) There shall be established for every district a district council which shall consist of the number of members specified in the district council scheme. The members of the county council for the electoral divisions within the district shall be ex-officio members of the district council, and the other members of the district council shall be elected for the electoral divisions within the district or for wards forming part thereof as may be provided in the scheme.
(3) The first election of members of the district council shall take place on the eighth day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty, and the members so elected shall hold office until the next election of members, which shall take place on the first Tuesday of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-two.
1601
(4) For the purposes of the first election of members of district councils the statutory provisions regulating the election of county councillors in landward parts of counties shall apply, subject to such modifications and adaptations as the Secretary of State may by order prescribe, and for the purposes of the second and subsequent elections of members of district councils the statutory provisions regulating the election of parish councillors in landward parishes and the landward parts of parishes (including the provisions of Section eighteen of the Act of 1894) shall apply, subject to such modifications and adaptations as the Secretary of State may by order prescribe, and such orders shall provide that the expenses of elections of district councils shall be repaid to the county councils by the district councils.
(5) In the case of each of the counties of Kinross and Nairn the provisions of this Section shall not apply unless the council of the county so determine, and, if the county council do not so determine, references in this Act to a district council and to the district of a district council shall he respectively construed as references to the county council and to the county: provided that where the county council shall, after the commencement of this Act, determine that the provisions of this Section shall apply, the scheme shall make the like provision as in the case of a new scheme altering the boundaries of a district—[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Mr. MacRobert): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
Under Clause 1 of the Bill, as amended, there is a reference to "the district council (constituted as herein after provided)," and this Clause, which stands in the name of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, is to give effect to that provision. In the first Sub-section provision is made for a scheme to be prepared and submitted, and subsequent Sub-sections deal with the constitution of the district councils. In Sub-section (5) special provision is made for the counties of Kinross and Nairn. In addition to their statutory powers, it is, of course, anticipated that under the power of delegation in the Bill as now framed, other and important matters will be delegated to the district councils.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed new Clause, in line 5, to leave out the words "landward part of the."

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Clause must be read a Second time before the hon. Member moves his Amendment.

Mr. JOHNSTON: But may I not, as in previous cases, discuss it?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member can speak on the question "That the Clause be read a Second time," but I understood him to say he was going to move his Amendment.

M. JOHNSTON: If I am not in order in begging to move, then I will not use those words, but will proceed without using them.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am sure the hon. Member understands what the position is. Of course, if he makes a speech devoted entirely to his Amendment, and goes into it in any great detail, he will not expect to make another speech, on moving it., but will only for, mally move the Amendment.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Certainly. As a matter of fact., our object on this side of the Committee all through has been to secure the consideration of important parts of the Bill, and, as you will have observed through the past week, we have never been guilty of the slightest obstruction. I have suggested the deletion of the words "landward part of the" in order to draw the attention of the Committee to the extraordinary situation which will arise if the Clause now moved becomes part of an Act of Parliament. Inside a Scottish county we are now going to have certainly three, and possibly four, separate districts for Poor Law relief. It is almost incredible that changes of this nature are being slipped through this House and put on the Statute Book of this country without any discussion at all. Let us take, for example, an average county. Poor Relief has to be administered by large burghs through their town councils. That is one system. Now we are going to have a system under which, in the landward parts of the counties, district councils are to be set up. Those district councils, we hope and expect, will have the administration of Poor Law relief handed over to them, but, if not, they might as well not be formed.
There are two systems—in the large cities and burghs, the town councils; in
the landward areas, the district committees. Now what about the small burghs? They are to be neither fish, flesh, fowl nor good red herring. The small burghs are not in this Clause which is now before the Committee. They are not included in the district council scheme. It is quite true that, under Clause 13 of the Bill, the county councils may, by agreement with the small burghs, devolve the Poor Law functions on the town council of the small burgh, but only if the town council of the small burgh agrees. If it does not agree—and this cannot be imposed upon it without its consent—then we are going to have the Poor Law relief administration in the small burgh administered from a county town. That is the third system. There is a fourth system under which, if the council of a small burgh agrees to fall in with the county councils scheme—if I am wrong I should like to be corrected now—

The LORD ADVOCATE: One point I noticed is this. The district councils and the small burghs are in exactly the same position with regard to delegation. The county council cannot force Poor Law relief administration on the district council.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I think I have forgotten more about this subject than the right hon. and learned Gentleman has learnt.

The LORD ADVOCATE: Prove it.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I am going to prove it. I am going to say that under your county council scheme the county council sets up a district council. This district council has then to be popularly elected for the purpose as set out by the scheme as passed by the county council. Is that denied?

Mr. SKELTON: The district councils are to be set up in the rural districts to carry on the work which was given to parish councils under the original Parish Councils Act.

Mr. JOHNSTON: These district councils are to be set up to undertake the functions which are specified in this Bill, plus the functions which are to be devolved upon them by the county council, and which are not yet specified. There is no use in having any mystification
about this. Anybody who has operated or attempted to operate the Poor Law system knows that there is a possibility of four separate systems of Poor Law administration inside the average county in Scotland. It is absurd—[Interruption]. Is there any denial of this?

The LORD ADVOCATE: I am not going to open an argument with the hon. Member.

Mr. JOHNSTON: The right hon. and learned Gentleman had better not. [interruption.] If we are going to have civility, let it be on both sides.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I prefer to give what I think the more correct account after the hon. Member has spoken.

Mr. JOHNSTON: That is a legitimate way to answer. I say that in the large burghs the town councils have got a statutory right to administer Poor Law relief. I say further, that under this scheme, in the landward areas alone, there are to be set up elected councils, and that only at the discretion of the county council have they the administration of Poor Law relief. The third point is that in the small burghs the town councils have not now statutory power to administer Poor Law relief, and they are not to be set up under this scheme. Therefore, it is only by voluntary agreement between the town council of the small burgh and the county council that the small burgh may deal with Poor Law relief, and if the small burgh does not so agree, then the county council will itself have the duty of administering Poor Law relief, instead of the small burgh. If the town council of the small burgh and the county council do agree, then, obviously, there will be four separate methods of administering Poor Law relief set up within one county of Scotland. I submit that sheer chaos and anarchy of this kind ought not to be passed by this Committee, but that we ought to take whatever steps are open to us to secure from the Government such Amendments to the Bill as will ensure for all time coming, or at least during the lifetime of this Measure, that what little democracy in administration we possess in our Scottish burghs shall not be filched from us.

The LORD ADVOCATE: The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) ignored a very important part of the scheme. As regards delegation of Poor Law functions, the small burgh and the district council will be in identically the same position. Any delegation must be voluntarily agreed on the part of both the county council and the town council of the small burgh, in the one case, and equally on the part of the county council and the district council in the other case. I agree that according as they do or do not agree, you will have delegation or you will not, but the hon. Member seems to forget one of the most vital reasons for this Bill, and that is that the indoor administration of Poor Law relief shall be managed and administered over larger areas. I had thought there was practically unanimous agreement in regard to that in this Committee, and that, on the other hand, there was a general feeling that the administration of out-door relief might be an appropriate subject for a smaller administrative area of distribution.
Hon. Members opposite seem to be somewhat suspicious in this matter, but I assume that all we are concerned with here is the better and more helpful administration of the Poor Law, and I do not think we have any right to assume that the local authorities are going to be guided by any other interests or principles than that of the general good. It may very well be that in certain areas a delegation even of the out-door poor relief is not wise or helpful or convenient, and it is for that reason that we have left it for the county council to frame the schemes, stating, among other things, what things they propose to delegate; but either my right hon Friend the Secretary of State or I made it quite clear that the angle of view from which, in approving a scheme, my right hon. Friend would approach this question of delegation would be on the footing that in-door poor relief should be retained, as it must be, by the central authority, but that out-door relief should be one of the things to be delegated. To make a hard-and-fast rule in the matter, however, would be unwise and unstatesmanlike.
It follows from that—and so far I accept the hon. Member's argument—that you may have a variety, but the question
is whether it is a reasonable scheme of administration, and I submit that this is the most reasonable form of administration we could get. If I may refer to the Amendment suggested by the hon. Member, the result of its acceptance would be to put small burghs into the area covered by the district councils. One of the reasons for setting up district councils was in order that the landward areas might have something similar to the small burgh administration in the rural parts of the county. The small burghs have their small burgh administration under the Bill; they will have even more powers than the district councils will have. I submit that this is a move which should be welcomed by everybody, and I hope the Committee will accept the Clause.

Mr. SHINWELL: I should like to remind the Committee that the proposal now before us is attributable to a change of attitude on the part of the Government. The Committee may recall that this proposition of district councils was forced upon the attention of the Government because of the opposition in Committee —and opposition not confined to one quarter alone—to the original scheme, which provided for centralisation; that is to say, complete power in the hands of the county council and the establishment of committees under the jurisdiction of the county council for the purpose of administering such functions as came within the jurisdiction of that body. That was the original proposal, and now we are considering something which is regarded by the Government apparently as a substantial improvement upon that original proposal. When the subject of district councils was first brought before us, I pointed out that what would follow would be a variation of method in respect of administration. Whether it had regard to the administration of the Poor Law or to any other function that came within the ambit of these bodies, there was bound to be a lack of unification. Variation was inevitable, and the Lord Advocate, in the reply which he has just made to the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston), proved conclusively the truth of what I have been saying.
As I understand the purpose of this Measure, it is to establish a measure of centralisation. We need not discuss for
the moment the merits of that proposition. The Lord Advocate has just said that, as far as institutional treatment is concerned, that is a matter that should be brought under the control of presumably a county council, because it can only be adequately treated over a wider area. Therefore, it is clear that the intention of the Government and of this scheme was centralisation, as far as that was humanly possible. Now what is proposed? We are to have district councils established, and they are to have certain powers, which depend, in the main, upon the form that the schemes may take. The county council, to begin with, has to prepare schemes, and as a result of these schemes we may find that one part of an area where a district council is established may be responsible for Poor Law administration, and quite contiguous to that area another district council, elected in precisely the same fashion, may have no such powers of administration placed in its hands.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate said it was entirely wrong of us to entertain suspicions. It altogether depends on the circumstances. If we entertain suspicions about the Government, we are condemned, but if the Government entertain suspicions about us, that is their manner, and I presume we must offer no complaint; but if I venture to entertain a suspicion in this connection, I hope the Lord Advocate will kindly lend me his ear, a thing he very rarely does. Perhaps on this very important matter he might do so, for even we who can only lay claim to some practical experience of administration in local government in Scotland can express a point of view that is worth at least the consideration of the Lord Advocate.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: On a point of Order. Is not the hon. Gentleman addressing his remarks to you, Mr. Herbert, and not to the Lord Advocate?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think the hon. and gallant Member need raise that point of order at this moment.

Mr. SHINWELL: If I was perhaps a little wide of the subject, I was led there by the reference which the Lord Advocate made to the suspicions we were alleged to entertain in respect of the actions of
the Government. I suspect that the preparation and acceptance of a scheme, and the decision in respect of the delegation of powers, either as regards Poor Law or any other matter, will depend—perhaps the Lord Advocate will tell me whether I speak correctly or not, or whether there is anything in my suspicion—upon the representation on these district councils. It may be that one district council may have a larger number of Labour members than another, and if it had, and it was thought that in the administration of outdoor relief it might be inclined to he lavish on occasions, then there would be no powers placed in its hands for the administration of outdoor relief, whereas quite contiguous to that district there might be a district council that was regarded as quite satisfactory by the Lord Advocate and his friends, and these powers would be placed in its hands. That is my suspicion, and I think there is substantial ground for entertaining such a suspicion, but in any event, entirely apart from worthy or unworthy motives, if this scheme is to work satisfactorily—and, after all, we must accept the basis of the scheme now, as we cannot change it at this time—then the essence of it must be, as far as is possible, a large amount of centralisation and, in addition, where there is to be delegation of powers, that they shall be specifically defined. That is very important.
It should be clearly laid down at this stage that if district councils are to be established, they should be empowered to function in respect of Dowers which are common to the whole area. That is a perfectly reasonable proposal. Perhaps in the county of West Lothian, and in many other counties in Scotland, there might be a dozen district councils, half-a-dozen of whom were responsible for the administration of outdoor relief and half-a-dozen of whom were precluded from doing anything of the kind, and, that being my view, I urge upon the Government the need for re-casting this new Clause and presenting it to us in a form which enables local government administrators in Scotland to know exactly what they will be called upon to do. Lastly, I submit that it is doubtful whether anyone can say what the powers of these district councils are to be. The whole thing is clouded by doubt, and district councils will not know what
powers they are to be called upon to discharge. In the circumstances, I think we are entitled to press our claim that this matter should be at all events reconsidered, even if the proposal cannot be withdrawn, and that on the Report stage the Government should come to the House with a fresh proposal.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I should be very glad if the Lord Advocate or the Solicitor-General would make clear one or two points. I agree, as do all supporters of the Government, with the general principles of the Clause; we are glad that district councils are to be set up and that the elective principle has been, as far as possible, retained; but what I am rather worried about is this: what is to be the position of the burghal parishes where there is no agreed delegation of authority from the county councils? The local councils send nominees to the county councils in respect of the transferred services, but here we have Poor Law services transferred to these new county authorities without the burghal parishes having any nominees on those authorities. That seems rather unfair to the members of these ex-parish councils who, after all, have spent their lives in performing this arduous and delicate job of administering Poor Law relief, and are the people who know most about it and have the most intimate sympathy with, and knowledge of, those whom they are serving. I would like the Lord Advocate or the Solicitor-General to give us some assurance that the principle of sending nominees from the local councils to these new county authorities will be maintained where there is no delegation of authority, agreed or otherwise, so as to secure that these smaller authorities may maintain their connection with the people whom they are serving. I hope that before the Report stage the Secretary of State will consider the question of placing more powers and more authority in the hands of the district councils—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot discuss the question of powers on this Clause. This Clause has nothing to do with the powers of the district councils, but only with their constitution.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I accept your Ruling, Sir, and I will try to put that
point forward on another occasion. I conclude by repeating my plea that we may get further information as to the position of the burghal parishes.

Mr. W. M. WATSON: This Clause is a considerable improvement on the Bill as it was originally presented to us. To a certain extent it has met the criticism levelled against the Bill on Second Reading to the effect that there was too much centralisation. This Clause allows of a certain amount of decentralisation, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) has pointed out, I am afraid it will lead to so much decentralisation that we shall have confusion. There is no doubt that a much better scheme could have been devised. I do not see why a scheme should not be drafted under which small burghs can get representation on the district councils for the purposes of Poor Law administration. I could have understood the attitude of the Government if the whole scheme of district councils had been something new. I assume that what is in the mind of the Government is that these district councils are to take the place of the district committees of the county councils, of which we have had experience since the Act of 1889. I am sorry we cannot, on this Clause, discuss the functions or the powers of these district councils, but I am assuming that the work done by the district committees in bygone years is to be done in future by the district councils. If that be so, I see no difficulty in giving the burghs representation on those district councils. The burghs within the areas covered by the district committees of the county councils have had representation on those district committees for purposes in which those burghs were particularly interested. If a burgh was financially interested in any matter which came before the district committee, the representatives from that burgh had the right both to speak and to vote on that question.
Why should not a scheme be devised under which the administration of the Poor Law would be handed over to the district councils, and representation be given to the burghs on those councils? Under the Bill as it is framed we shall have Poor Law administration handed over to the district councils. It may be handed over to some of the bigger burghs
within a particular area covered by a district council, and it may be withheld from some of the smaller burghs within that area. Take the Dunfermline district of the County of Fife. In that district there are burghs which I do not suppose the county council would think of asking to undertake the administration of the Poor Law, burghs with a population of 500 or 600. Seeing that provision is being made for these small burghs being represented on the county council, why should they not have a say on the district council in the administration of the Poor Law in their area? If the Lord Advocate would meet us to that extent I am certain he would find that it would prove to be the better scheme. You would have your Poor Law committee established under the district council, upon which there would be representation not only from the landward area of the district, but representation as well from the burghs within the area, and then you would have one authority dealing with the administration of the Poor Law in that particular area. Over these district councils you would have the county councils supervising their work. It would be a much simpler system than we shall have under this scheme. I suppose there would be no difficulty about a county council agreeing to a burgh with a population of 10,000 or 15,000 having the administration of the Poor Law within its own area, but is the Lord Advocate quite sure that the town council of such a burgh would be anxious to undertake that work? Would not these burghs be quite satisfied to have their representatives on the district council, taking their part in the work of administering the Poor Law over the whole area? I am certain that even the burghs with 10,000 or 15,000 population would be satisfied with representation on the district councils in the administration of the Poor Law.
Not only that, but under this Bill other functions are to be, or are expected to be, transferred to the district councils. I assume that these district councils are going to function for the county council as the district committees functioned in by-gone years, and that in certain districts the district councils will be asked to supervise the roads in their areas. I assume the district councils are going to be something like the district com-
mittees; if they are not, the sooner we know what the district councils are to do the better. If the district councils are to be set up for the administration of the Poor Law and one or two other trifling matters, the sooner we abandon the whole scheme of district councils the better it will be. When I first saw this scheme and saw that the district councils might delegate certain duties, I assumed that those district councils were to have the status of the district committees, and, if that be so, there is no reason why they should not undertake the administration of the roads and other things which may be transferred to them by the county councils.
I hope the Government will reconsider this matter, and that under this district council system we shall have something on the lines of the district committees which have worked so well hitherto. I am certain the Lord Advocate will agree that the district committees have done good work. They have made it possible for the county councils to function. The county councils could not function without the district committees, and unless the district councils are to have something like the powers of the district committees, plus the administration of the Poor Law, I am afraid the whole scheme will be very much of a farce. I appeal to the Lord Advocate to make arrangements whereby the burghs within the area of a district council have representation on it for purposes in which those burghs are financially interested. We do not claim that the burgh representatives should interfere with the work of the district councils in matters in which they are not financially concerned, but, seeing the Government have agreed that burghs are to have representation on the county councils, what earthly objection can there be to their getting representation on the district councils for purposes in which their burghs are financially interested? Again I hope this matter will be reconsidered, because otherwise we are going to have a complicated system of administration of the Poor Law.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I would like to point out that Clause 13, as amended, now provides not only for the delegation of powers to the town council of any small burgh, or the district council, but, thirdly, to a joint committee of such a town council and district council
That, it seems to me, covers the case which the hon. Member is putting forward.

Mr. WATSON: That is all very well, but that simply proves what my hon. Friend has been pointing out, that under the provisions as drafted we are going to have a complicated scheme when, all the time, we could have a perfectly clear and definite scheme if the Government would only say clearly that the district councils are to have certain definite powers and that those powers must be transferred to them from the county council.

Mr. SKELTON: I find it very hard to follow what is in the minds of the Labour party on this matter. Are they for centralisation, or are they not? With regard to the administration of the Poor Law, the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) pointed out that in his reckoning there were going to be four different systems within a county. The easiest way to have eliminated one of his four would have been to have insisted at the proper point in Committee upon burghs of over 20,000 population being combined with the counties for purposes of Poor Law administration, but, as far as I recollect, no suggestion of that sort was made. The position taken up by the Labour party has all along been that we are wresting from the burghs of Scotland all sorts of powers and privileges which they have had immemorially and hereby doing an undemocratic act. Now, apparently, in regard to Poor Law—

Mr. JOHNSTON: Nobody has said anything in the least like it.

Mr. SKELTON: I think that the hon. Gentleman speaks rather hastily. In his powerful argument about the four differents systems, his point surely was that so many different systems were bad and that there should be a reduction to some smaller number. The complaint is that there are four different systems of Poor Law within the county, and, when I say that one of these could have been eliminated by taking away Poor Law powers from the burghs of over 20,000 population, I am told that I am interpreting the hon. Gentleman's speech in an unjustifiable way.

Mr. JOHNSTON: The hon. Gentleman said that we apparently want to take
away these powers. We have never talked about taking away the powers.

Mr. SKELTON: I do not make myself sufficiently plain. What I said was that the hon. Gentleman complained of the multiplicity of systems, and that one of the first ways of reducing the number would be to take Poor Law powers away from burghs of over 20,000 population, but no such suggestion has been made. The position of the party above the Gangway throughout the Committee stage was that we were taking away too many powers. That is a contradiction. My hon. Friend must agree that the powers of Poor Law administration in the burghs of over 20,000 must stand, and he must agree that no proposal to remove the powers from these burghs was made, so that his criticisms seem to have been answered in advance by the supineness of his party on this point. I do not follow the difficulty of understanding what I say.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I have often admired the hon. Gentleman, and I agree with him on many points in the administration of public affairs in Scotland, but he has simply not got the hang of what we are after.

Mr. SKELTON: At all events, one of the four systems, to the numerousness of which the hon. Gentleman objects, is due to the fact that Poor Law powers have been left to the burghs of over 20,000. Let us come to the other systems. The suggestion was made by the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. W. M. Watson) that more definite power should be given to the district council with regard to the Poor Law. That is again the exact opposite of centralisation. The criticism of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) against the system which the Government have proposed is based upon the fact that he does not realise the difference between having four different systems as he described it, arid the system which has been laid down by the Government of having Poor Law control concentrated in the county council, except in the case of the burghs of 20,000 population, and the delegating of powers by the county council under different circumstances to different agencies. That is a thoroughly sound and happy combination between centralisation and the maintenance of local knowledge and local touch. As far as I understand the ques-
tions connected with the Poor Law, the problem which Poor Law reformers are constantly trying to solve is to have centralisation and at the same time to maintain the local touch.
Take the two cases of which the hon. Member for Dundee spoke. He seemed to think that the two cases are the small burghs and the country districts. The small burghs will secure the local touch by delegation to their town councils, but in the country districts, until the Government introduced this district council, there was no equivalent representative body which would be democratic in nature and yet supply the local touch. Therefore, the four systems resolve themselves into this. The first is the burgh of 20,000, which is well qualified to have full control of Poor Law in its area; of the other three, the only one that can be described as a system is the county council with its complete control of the Poor Law. The other two systems are simply methods of delegation to agencies which will supply the local touch. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to call it a system, he might have added a fifth, because the Lord Advocate reminded him of the useful provision that the small burgh and the district council can combine for the work of Poor Law. To talk of this arrangement as four systems is manifestly inaccurate. I agree that in a county which contains a burgh of 20,000 it would be correct to talk of two systems, one the burghal Poor Law and the other the county Poor Law; but where there is no burgh of 20,000, there is only one Poor Law system, although there may be minor differences in regard to the actual agencies through which Poor Law relief is administered. It is not worthy of the interest which hon. Members above the Gangway take in the Poor Law system and its reform for them to give so distorted and utterly untrue an account of the system of the Government.

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: I agree that to understand this Clause properly one must go back to its genesis, to the time when the Minister of Health said to the Secretary of State for Scotland: "I have made a change in Poor Law administration in England, and you must make a change in Scotland." The Secretary of State said: "We are quite satisfied with our system." Then the
Minister of Health said: "You are all out of date; popular control and free elections and all that is pre-war; the idea of democracy is Liberal eye-wash. What you want is an enlightened bureaucracy; that is the up-to-date thing." So the Secretary of State rummaged about among the machine of Scottish local government and introduced, in the first version of the Bill, a real, proper, sealed pattern, up-to-date system of centralised local—

Mr. SKELTON: Surely the hon. Baronet must know that in the English system the parish councils were left untouched.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I know that perfectly well, but all I was saying—

Mr. SKELTON: Oh, no!

Sir A. SINCLAIR: The hon. Member knows that, if I were to deal with it, it would lead me into an enormously long speech. He knows that the parish council in England is a totally different body, with totally different functions and different responsibilities from the parish councils in Scotland, with powers which are much more limited, playing a different part—

Mr. SKELTON: rose—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must not persist in interrupting.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: —and with a different kind of function from the Scottish parish council. I was saying that the Secretary of State in his first draft of the Bill introduced a proper, logical, sealed pattern idea of centralised administration running all through our local government. Then he encountered a storm. Public opinion would not stand it, and, particularly in the Highlands of Scotland, the rural districts were determined to retain some form of democratic control of their local affairs. Therefore, we have the Lord Advocate introducing this Clause, and we find the Government again fiddling with the delicate and important mechanism of Scottish local government which has stood the people of Scotland so well, and which the Government show so little signs of understanding. The parish councils which the Lord Advocate is asking us to abolish received from a Committee appointed either by Mr. Bonar Law's Government or by the
present Prime Minister's first Government a commendation of the work which they have done in the Report which was published in 1923 by the Consultations Council on the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. It was declared in the Report that parish councils were essential to the efficient working of local administration in the Highlands of Scotland—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Does that affect the constitution of these new district councils?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Yes, these are the bodies which are being done away with to make room for them.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Baronet must remember that they have been abolished already.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I do remember it, and the people of Scotland will remember it at the General Election. The parish councils having been wiped away, we now come to consider the machinery which the Government propose to substitute. The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Skelton) speaks about the contradiction in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston). There is no contradiction. Nobody ever suggested or wants to suggest on this side that the powers of the large burghs should be interfered with; what we suggest is that the right way to have tackled this thing would have been to have left they powers with the parish councils. The hon. Member declares that the powers which are given to the district councils are the same as those that the parish councils have had. We in the Highlands, however, attach considerable importance to the fact that the district councils are not being given the charge of the burial grounds and the churchyards in the parish which the parish councils have looked after ever since they were constituted.

The LORD ADVOCATE: On a point of Order. We have already settled what, powers are to be transferred to these bodies.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I was thinking I should have to interrupt the hon. Baronet in a moment. He must confine himself strictly to the Clause.

5.0 p.m.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: A long argument has been going on between the hon. Member for Dundee and the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Skelton) as to whether large burghs, county councils, parish councils or district councils, should have the powers of the Poor Law.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is quite true, and that is the reason why, up to a certain point, I had not interrupted the hon. Baronet.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I will accept your Ruling, Sir, but I can assure you that in the Highlands we attach much importance to looking after our burial grounds just as we do to the proper administration of the Poor Law. There is no provision in this new constitution for retaining parochial identity. That is what was important in the old scheme. That is what gave the old parish councils a good deal of their driving power and their inspiration, the idea of emulation and rivalry in the service they. gave to the public, and the economy with which that service could be given. You do not get that in this new scheme. You will have these parishes carved about and chopped up, and you will lose a great deal of the local interest and drive in the administration of these local bodies in the Highlands and rural districts which comes from parochial patriotism and pride in the interests of the small parochial community. I am very glad the question of the small burghs has been raised, because you have what is known as the parish council of the small burgh, which includes a good deal outside the actual burgh for including which I do not see provision under this scheme. I do not wish to pursue that, because I understand the hon. Member for Dundee is going to move an Amendment which deals with that point specifically. I see in this scheme none of the attractive and alluring prospects of economy and efficiency which were held out to us when the new scheme was brought in. I do not believe in all this centralisation, but I can quite see that there is an argument. All that has gone by the board. So what are we going to get for this change that you are going to make, for the loss of parochial identity which we are going to suffer? I see nothing at all.
The Lord Advocate has talked about suspicion. I never suggested that he personally entertained any suspicion of these local authorities, but the whole scheme is based upon suspicion of the efficiency and the satisfactory service which these bodies are able to give. He does not believe that freedom and responsibility give good public service. He believes that we can only get those things from an enlightened bureaucracy. That is a conception to which I take exception, and that is all I meant when I talked about the suspicion of the Government. Of course, you can get good results from a certain measure of centralisation, and that is being carried on in a voluntary way all over the country at present, and it should be assisted and encouraged where it adds to efficiency. The hon. Member for Perth said how much he was in favour of centralisation and it was apparent how much he had learnt upon the subject from the Socialist party, and it is not surprising, because, of course, they are very strongly in favour of centralised bureaucratic systems of control. You really can get democratic control of the actual Government, particularly in Poor Law questions—democratic control of the actual Poor Law officials, democratic control of the local affairs of the parish or the small community or whatever it may be, and centralisation of institutions serving a number of Poor Law areas. That is what you are getting under a democratic and free system at present, and you are not getting anything in exchange for what you are losing under the Measure introduced by the Government. Therefore, I strongly object to the proposal which the Government are bringing forward. It is true that it is a little better than the original idea which they had of sweeping away all the machinery for enabling the people to govern themselves in their small communities, particularly in the rural districts. It is better than the proposals that were in the Bill in its original form, but still we are losing a great deal by losing our parish system of local government, and I cannot see that we are getting anything in exchange.

Brigadier-General CHARTERIS: The hon. Baronet has repeated the speech
which he has given us several times. The last time I heard it was on the more appropriate occasion of the Second Reading, but, between then and now, he does not appear to have accumulated any more evidence of anything wrong with the Bill.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I am confined to this point.

Brigadier-General CHARTERIS: I tried hard to find a point.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: You say I made it three times.

Brigadier-General CHARTERIS: Each time the hon. Baronet has made the speech, I have made an effort, but each time I have had the same difficulty. He says that Scotland is losing a great deal by the loss of parochial identity.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not follow what he alleges is inappropriate to the Committee stage.

Brigadier-General CHARTERIS: In opening the Debate the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston), as far as I can see, claimed that we are establishing four different systems of administering the Poor Law in every county. There is a certain confusion of ideas. I think what the hon. Member was trying to establish was that there were four different agencies whereby the same system might be administered within one county. That is true. You have, of course, different agencies inside a county administering the Poor Law under one system. That is where this proposal has such a great advantage over that which it is superseding. You will have in future different agencies, but you will have one measure of control. If you take it as a matter of agency, the number of agencies you are introducing is infinitely less. The hon. Baronet referred to the number of parishes that had done loyal service, but surely it is fair and right that Parliament should take steps to bring institutions up-to-date. Surely those who have served loyally and well under the old system will serve equally well under the new. The hon. Member for Dundee traversed the statement of the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Skelton) that the Labour party were prepared to take away from the burghs something that-
they have at present. Undoubtedly that seems to be the case. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Dundee proposes to transfer to the district councils powers which at present the small burghs are exercising and have exercised for immemorial years. It will make such a sad confusion that the Bill will be entirely unworkable. Not only so, but we have already dealt with the very powers that the hon. Member proposes to deal with. I think he will be well-advised to withdraw the Amendment which he has not yet moved.

The LORD ADVOCATE: It is even more of a muddle than the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggests, because the Bill already, in obliterating the parish councils in the small burghs, has transferred all the parish councils' power to the county councils. The only things that district councils can get under the Clause are the powers that are to be transferred to them by Clause 1 (2), and those are only landward parish council powers, and it is proposed to set up district councils for an area for which no powers are transferred. How that is going to work out I do not know.

Mr. SHINWELL: I think it ought to be said in defence of the hon. Baronet the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) that, however frequently he makes the speech we have heard, it contains so many interesting points and is delivered in so fascinating a manner that we are only too pleased to listen to it again. I rose, however, for the purpose, not of paying compliments, but of satisfying the anxiety of the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Skelton), who appeared to desire enlightenment in respect of our proposals. To begin with, we asked for no change. It is the Government that was responsible for proposing a change. We were quite willing to retain the existing system, but the change was forced upon us by the Government's proposal. At all events so it is alleged. The Government say that centralization is better than the existing system. We say: "Very well, let us see your scheme." Then the Government say to apply their proposal it is essential for the centralised authority to operate through district committees. Afterwards it is discovered that there is a flaw in the scheme and the Government say "We now propose to set up district councils." We are now
dealing with that issue. It is not right for the Lord Advocate to say that it is for us to bring forward concrete proposals. We are dealing with a proposal for which the Government is responsible.
Let us examine that proposal very briefly. The Lord Advocate says to begin with that functions already decided upon, which we cannot discuss now, are to be transferred to the district councils. What are those functions? They are laid down in the Bill. Has it occurred to the Lord Advocate that while functions in the abstract are to be transferred no specific functions are to be transferred to any particular district council. That is our case against the Lord Advocate. One district council may have Poor Law powers transferred to it and another district council may have other powers.

Brigadier-General CHARTERIS: Is the hon. Member in order in making the same speech twice over?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have not yet recognised the hon. Member's speech as one which I have heard before.

Mr. SHINWELL: The hon. and gallant Member must not accuse me of the same misdemeanour which he saw in the speech of the hon. and gallant Baronet, and he is obviously wrong. The Lord Advocate proposes to transfer certain functions, but they are not specific and well defined. Some councils may have transferred to them certain functions, and other councils may be precluded from exercising those functions. Therefore we have an infinite variety of functions, a very fascinating variety, which it may not be desirable to apply to local government in Scotland. I ask the Lord Advocate whether the district councils under this scheme to whom these functions are to be transferred are to have entrusted to them the same functions in all cases, or are we to have a condition of things where there will be a thousand district councils in Scotland all empowered to deal with different functions under the scheme.
I think that is a specific question which the Under-Secretary will understand. There is nothing foggy or involved in that issue and much depends on the answer. I contend that if we are to have a scheme we are entitled to know how it is likely to operate. I do not say that
we should be told all the details, but we should have a clear line of approach. We should know the nature of the ground over which we are expected to travel, and I ask for the sake of local government administration in Scotland and to dispel the anxiety which obviously exists in Scotland with respect to this proposal that we should have a clear answer to the question which I have put to the Lord Advocate.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: A good deal of the Debate has ranged round what seems to me to be a misdescription of the Clause by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston). The hon. Member spoke of different schemes, but these are not different schemes. The Government have decided to centralise; they have had to create agencies, and what we are now discussing are the agencies for carrying out their policy. You have had your large burghs and small burghs, and combined district councils, and you have a large number of agencies carrying
out centralised work. What the Lord Advocate has just said is that we have already transferred the powers to these authorities, and that statement must carry great weight. May I point out that if my hon. Friend presses his Amendment it will leave the small burgh in the air.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Before this Clause is added to the Bill, I should like to point out that the Bill is entirely different from the Measure which was originally introduced, in fact it is a new Bill. The Lord Advocate seems to have completely misapprehended the situation which will arise under this proposal in certain parts of Scotland. Take a burgh of 12,000 inhabitants. There will be a district council administering Poor Law relief in that burgh of 12,000 inhabitants, and there will be no guarantee that the statutory guardians will have Poor Law relief to administer. There will be no guarantee that the scheme put forward by the county council would meet with the approval of the town council, and they might refuse to administer Poor Law relief. I need not explain that a system under which these things are possible reflects no credit either upon the Government or the Committee which allows such a state of things to be established. The Lord Advocate says the town council of a small burgh and the district council of the
large burgh will be placed on a similar footing for all practical purposes, but that is not so, because the small burgh has a separate statutory existence now. It need not accept any suggestion from the county council. It need not accept the county council's scheme, and its existence is entirely independent of the county council.

The LORD ADVOCATE indicated dissent.

Mr. JOHNSTON: But surely that is a plain statement of facts. Those councils have a statutory existence at the present time quite separate from the county council. In the case of the district council to be set up under this Clause the county council will specify the number of members on that district council, and they will fix the duties which the district councillors have to perform. Those district councils are set up under the aegis and control of the county council, and therefore it is incorrect to say that the council of the small burgh and the district council are on a similar footing.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I directly challenge my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) to justify what he has just said. Under this Bill the councils to which he has referred have a separate existence apart from the county
council. They will have separate statutory duties which the county council cannot touch. They will have power to rate, and they are identical in that respect. Both of them will have an equal claim in regard to the powers delegated under Clause 13, and they are on the same footing whether they are district councils, small burghs or joint committees. To seek to draw a distinction like that which has been drawn by the hon. Member for Dundee is a misreading of the Clause. We give the council a separate statutory right of its own and separate power to rate just in the same way as the small burgh has, and, in addition, it may have those duties delegated to it under Clause 13.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Is it not a fact that the district council is to have its numbers fixed by the county council?

The LORD ADVOCATE: The county councils submit the scheme for the approval of the Secretary of State, and
the numbers of the small burgh councils in many cases are fixed by the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Is it not a fact that the numbers of the small burghs are in no cases fixed by the county council?

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Provisions relating to district councils.)

(1) Every district council shall be incorporated under the name of the district council of the district and any deed or other document shall he deemed to have been duly executed by the district council if signed on their behalf by two members and the clerk.

(2) Every district council shall appoint a clerk it ho shall hold office during the pleasure of the council and be paid such reasonable salary as the council may think proper.

(3) The provisions of the Act of 1894 applicable to parish councils with respect to meetings, conduct of business, quorum, filling of casual vacancies, the chairman of the council and of meetings, disqualification of councillors, appointment of committees, payments and receipts, budget and absence of councillors from meetings, shall, with the necessary modifications, apply to district councils and the members thereof, and the provisions of section thirty-one and subsection (2) of section thirty-eight of the said Act (which respectively relate to the use of school rooms and returns to the Secretary of State as to outstanding loans) shall, with the necessary modifications, apply in the ease of district councils and the electors thereof as they apply in the case of parish councils and the parish electors.

(4) The provisions of section sixty-eight of the Act of 1889 (relating to the accounts of county councils) and the provisions of the Third Schedule to this Act (relating to the audit of accounts of county councils and town councils) shall with the necessary modifications apply in the case of district councils.

(5) Where the Public Libraries (Scotland) Acts, 1887 to 1920, are in operation within a parish or part of a parish included within the district of a district council the said Acts shall be deemed to have been adopted throughout the whole of the said district.

(6) The special parish rate leviable under Part IV of the Act of 1894 shall after the commencement of this Act be termed the district council rate and all expenses falling to he met by a district council, whether under Part IV of the Act of 1894 or other wise, including expenses of determining as to the adoption of the Public Libraries (Scotland) Acts, 1887 to 1920, where these Acts are not adopted, shall be defrayed out of the district council rate and the provisions of the said Public Libraries (Scotland) Acts so far as inconsistent herewith shall cease to have effect.

(7) The limit on the district council rate shall be one shilling in the pound instead of sixpence in the pound, and sub-section (1) of section twenty-seven of the Act of 1894 shall have effect accordingly.

(8) Every district council shall annually ascertain the amount required for the purposes of their powers and duties under the Acts of Parliament administered by them and shall, on or before the fifteenth day of July in each year, certify to the county council the amount required to be provided for these purposes by the county council, and the county council shall, subject to the limit aforesaid, levy within the district a district council rate of such amount, as is necessary to provide the amount specified in the certificate, and shall collect and recover the rate and from time to time, as they collect it and at such intervals as the county council and the district council may agree, and, failing agreement, as the Secretary of State may determine, pay over to the district council the amount collected up to the amount specified in the certificate and, sc far as the amount specified in the certificate has not been paid over by that time, the county council shall annually on the first day of May pay over the balance to the district council, notwithstanding that it has not been collected, and may borrow for the purpose.

Any surplus relating to the district council rate in the hands of the county council which may arise in any one year shall be applied for the purposes of the ensuing year, a ad in like manner any deficiency which may occur in any year shall he included in the rate for the ensuing year.

(9) A district council may make bye-laws for preserving and regulating any recreation ground, common, bleaching green, open space, or other place of public resort or recreation within the district and for regulating the use of the same and for ensuring good order in the use thereof, and the provisions of sections one hundred and eighty-three to one hundred and eighty-seven of the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897 (which relate to bye-laws made under that Act), shall apply to bye-laws made under this sub-section.—[The Solicitor-General for Scotblvd.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The purpose of this Clause is to incorporate the district councils and provide for the appointment of a clerk, arrange for meetings, and to provide for audits. I noticed that the hon. and gallant Member for Dumfries (Brigadier-General Charteris) has placed an Amendment on the Paper to leave out Sub-section (5) which deals with the Public Libraries (Scotland) Acts, 1887 to 1920. May I point out that under the Bill the district councils are having trans-
ferred to them the duties under the Libraries Act of the parish councils in landward areas. At the present time the Libraries Acts may be carried out by a parish which may be only part of the district council as formed, and it is only right that the provision with regard to public libraries should not be confined to part of the district council but should extend to the whole district council which is rated as a whole. That is the purpose of Sub-section (5). I do not think any explanation is required of the other Subsections of this new Clause.

Brigadier-General CHARTER IS: I rise to move my Amendment to the proposed new Clause, in line 21, to leave out Subsection (5).

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member cannot move that Amendment at the present moment. The Question before the Committee is, "That the Clause be read a Second time," and, after that has been agreed to, the hon. and gallant Member can move his Amendment.

Sir R. HAMILTON: I should like to ask the Lord Advocate a question, which probably he will be able to answer very quickly. It occasionally happens that from among the members of the parish councils now existing, trustees are appointed for special purposes. I have in mind at the present moment a particular pier for which trustees are appointed by one or two parish councils. I should like to be assured that what is being done by the parish councils to-day will be carried on by the new district councils, and that, where it may be necessary to appoint trustees to carry on trusts of that nature, the power to do so will not be lost sight of, but will be transferred or conveyed to the members of the newly-constituted district council.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I understand that there is nothing in the Bill to prevent that being done.

Sir R. HAMILTON: Will there be any need for a special Order by the Secretary of State?

The LORD ADVOCATE: I will look into the matter.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time.

Brigadier-General CHARTERIS: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed new Clause, in line 21, to leave out Sub-section (5).
The purpose of this Amendment is to try to correct an anomaly which will appear under the Bill with regard to those parishes which have adopted the Public Libraries Acts. As I understand the situation, prior to this Bill a parish or small burgh which had adopted the Public Libraries Act, and had rated for the particular library within its own precincts, could not be subsequently rated to the full by the education authority for the general education library. Under the Bill as it now stands, that provision is removed, and there is a risk that any parish or small burgh will find itself paying double rates, that is to say, it will be paying rates for its own library, and also for the library under the county authority. In addition to that, the Bill will bring about the situation that a parish which has amalgamated with another parish into a district council will now not only pay the county rate for the county library, but will also have to pay the rate for the library which has been established in another parish with which it has been amalgamated. Of course it is quite true that in point of fact these difficulties will be adjusted by ordinary good will and common sense and cooperation between the various authorities, and I do not imagine for a moment that in general that desire to co-operate and that good will will be lacking; but instances may occur for some reason or other in which there may be acute difficulties in the administration of the Bill as it stands. There may not be cooperation, there may not be an arrangement whereby this double rating is avoided; and it is to meet that possibility that I have put down this Amendment, and also a further Amendment—to leave out from the word "otherwise," in line 28, to the word "shall," in line 29.
The purpose of these Amendments will be to transfer the control of libraries out of the hands of the district councils and small burghs, and to place it entirely in the hands of the one authority, the county authority. That will not only assist co-operation, but will ensure that the provision of libraries for the county will be undertaken by a completely self-contained authority. I understand that
one of the objections to the present system—the telescoping of the two rates —has been the large amount of accountancy involved in deciding how the rates should be distributed. I do not know how far that objection is correct or not, but I investigated the matter in my own county, and found that, while one of the bodies concerned, namely, the county council, stated that the accounting was indeed laborious and involved a large amount of work, on the other hand, the education authority inclined to the opinion that the accounting was easy. Whether the amount of accounting be large or not, all the anomalies which will still remain if the Bill be passed in its present form would be removed if these Amendments were incorporated in it.

Mr. BARR: I desire to give support, for myself at least, and I believe for those associated with me here, to the proposal of the hon. and gallant Member for Dumfries (Brigadier-General Charteris). As is apparent from this Clause, there are a number of Acts dealing with public libraries, and a number of anomalies are created by the new situation. I know that my own burgh and many others are anxious about the situation that is thus created. It is well known that under the Education Act, in order to give facilities to the young people, there was power to levy a particular rate in order to establish a library, in the first instance, for the advantage of the young people, but with a proviso that it would also be available for all in the district to avail themselves of it. The position now is that a town, let us say, that has been at the expense of establishing a library in that way, may be brought in also to provide rates for library accommodation additional to its own, and thus a further load would be put upon it, the incidence of which would not be quite fair. I am not quite sure— and I think that the hon. and gallant Member has anticipated this himself— whether this particular Amendment in itself would put the whole anomaly right. I think, if I may say so, that some consideration would be necessary on the part of the Scottish Office and the Government to adjust the whole matter, so that what is being done in a particular area under the Act to which I have referred might be deducted in some way from the present rate, and thus bring
about some degree of equality of incidence in the payment over the whole area. We are in general agreement with the proposal of the hon. and gallant Member, but I think that considerable adjustment will be needed, and I should like to know that the Government are conscious of the anomaly and of the injustice that will be created unless something is done, either by deleting this Subsection as now suggested, or by adjusting the rating so that there will not be such a double rating as the hon. and gallant Member suggests will result.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I am afraid that my hon. and gallant Friend is a bit late in the clay with his Amendment, because we have already, under Clause 1 of the Bill, transferred to the district councils the powers of the parish councils under the Public Libraries (Scotland) Acts, 1887 to 1920, and, therefore, the district councils will have the power to rate for this purpose. All that Subsection (5) does is to say that as regards the adoption—not as regards rating—of the Acts, and the necessary consequences, the adoption having taken place, of the transfer of powers to the District Council, the adoption shall be deemed to have extended to the whole district council area, as well as the original parish for which in fact it actually took place. The taking out of these words would really only be a matter of drafting. With regard to the merits of the question, I think it would be out of order to discuss them at this stage, as the powers under the Public Libraries (Scotland) Acts, 1887 to 1920, could not now be transferred to the county council, which is really what my hon. and gallant Friend suggests.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I did not quite understand, until the hon. and gallant Member for Dumfries (Brigadier-General Charteris) had finished his speech, what was his object in moving the Amendment, but, of course, as has been pointed out by the Lord Advocate, it would not have the effect of making any alteration in regard to the powers of administering those Acts, which have already been dealt with in an earlier part of the Bill; and, therefore, it would not be in order for the Lord Advocate to go into the question of the advisability or otherwise of the transfer to the district council of these powers relating to public libraries.

Brigadier-General CHARTERIS: May I say that I have also an Amendment to Schedule 1, to add the Public Libraries Act?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am afraid, none the less, that the inclusion of that particular function has been dealt with in Clause 1, and, therefore, cannot now be altered.

Brigadier-General CHARTERIS: Although, if my Amendment were accepted, it would admittedly leave something of a jagged edge on the Bill, it would not entirely invalidate what has already been passed by the Committee.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is the reason why the hon. and gallant Member was allowed to move the Amendment, but I think the result of it would be rather unsatisfactory. I rose, however, in order, the Lord Advocate having discovered what was in the hon. and gallant Member's mind, to draw his attention to the fact that he could not discuss this matter, as it has been dealt with in an earlier part of the Bill.

Mr. BARR: If it is not altogether out of order, may I say that I am quite sure that the Lord Advocate and the Government must be aware of the anomaly to which I referred just now, and may I ask whether they will consider, between now and the Report stage, whether something can be done to remove it, either in this Clause or in some other part of the Bill?

Mr. W. M. WATSON: There was an Amendment earlier which would have had the same effect as the one now proposed by the hon. and gallant Member for Dumfries (Brigadier-General Charteris), but it was not reached. Perhaps that Amendment might be raised during the Report stage, and I hope that the Government will consider the matter, because it is one which affects a great many districts.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that the hon. Member must reserve his remarks on that matter until the Report stage.

Brigadier-General CHARTERIS: I cannot proceed further in face of your ruling, and, accordingly, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question, "That the Clause be added to the Bill," put, and agreed to.

NEW CLAUSE.—(County clerk depute.)

A county clerk may appoint one or more persons approved by the county council to act as his depute or deputes, and all things required or authorised by law to be done by or to the county clerk may be done by or to any depute county clerk so appointed. —[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND: I beg to mo e, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The town clerk of a burgh has already the right to appoint a deputy town clerk under the Act of 1900, and the object of this Clause is to give exactly the same power to a county clerk.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Relief to occupiers of agricultural lands and heritages not to be taken account of for certain purposes.)

The relief to occupiers of agricultural lands and heritages effected by this Act or by the Agricultural Rates Act, 1923, as amended by the Act of 1926, shall not be taken into account by the Land Court in fixing a fair or equitable rent for a holding under the Small Landholders (Scotland) Acts, 1886 to 1919, or by an arbiter in determining for the purposes of section twelve of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1923, what rent is properly payable in respect of a holding.—[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The purpose of this Clause is to provide that relief given to occupiers of agricultural land and heritages shall not be taken into account by the Land Court in fixing what is a fair or equitable rent for the holding, or by an arbiter in fixing the amount of compensation to be given under the Agricultural Holdings Act in case of disturbance. The Clause will apply, not only to the relief given to the occupier directly, but also to the relief that he would get from the landlord.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Would it not apply to both after seven years?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND: If any relief is given, whether directly to the occupier or indirectly to him through the landlord, that relief is not to be taken into account in fixing a fair and equitable rent, nor in fixing compensation.

Mr. JOHNSTON: There appears to be a difficulty about representatives of the Government making up their minds.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND: If I am wrong with regard to that, the Lord Advocate will correct me. In the Act of 1923 there is a Section in exactly the same terms. I understand that the interpretation of that Section is that the relief to the occupier includes the relief which he gets from the landlord. If the phraseology of the Clause is made different from the phraseology in the Act of 1923 complications might arise. Accordingly, I think that the Clause suggested ought to be carried.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: As I think I was the first to raise the question of adding this Clause to the Bill when the Debate took place on the Second Reading of the Bill, I should like to thank the Government for having listened to and granted my request and added it to the Bill. I would also like to remind the Committee that the Section which figures in the Act of 1923 was originally drafted by a, Member well known to Members in all parts of this Committee who sat in this House at that time and who took great interest in the question, Mr. James Falconer, Member for Forfarshire. It was owing to his initiative that this Section was placed in the Act of 1923 where it has proved a very valuable protection to the tenant. The point to which my Amendment is directed is a very important one. It is that we should make absolutely certain not only that the rating relief which comes direct to the tenant, but also that which comes indirectly to him through the landlords, should be included. If we can be assured by the Solicitor-General or the Lord Advocate that these words that I am proposing to insert are unnecessary and that the Clause applies both to the fixing of the rent of the landholder and the statutory small tenant, and also
with regard to the claims for compensation for disturbance—as to which there seems to be some difference of opinion—I should desire to withdraw my Amendment.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL, for SCOTLAND: I was wrong with regard to that and the Lord Advocate has, of course, corrected me. It is a question of rent in both cases as stated in the Clause.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Unfortunately, we could not hear the Lord Advocate's explanation which was given sotto voce. I would ask that it should be made clear how the Clause does affect both the landholder and the statutory small tenant on the one hand and the payment of compensation for disturbance on the other.

The LORD ADVOCATE: May I say with regard to the Amendments to the proposed Clause of the hon. and gallant Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) that, while I personally —and it is a matter of legal opinion—would be satisfied with the present words, I am ready to accept his Amendments so as to place the matter beyond doubt. These words have operated for five years, and no one has suggested that there has been any difficulty. With regard to the other point which the hon. and gallant Gentleman raised, a slight misunderstanding occurred. There might be a case where the landlord might accept the arbitrated rent. The tenant might declare that his rent was too big and offer a smaller rent. He might say: "Let me stay on for the rest of the accepted lease at a smaller rent." The landlord might say: "No, thank you, that rent is not sufficient." Then there would be time to appeal to arbitration. The result of that arbitration would not necessarily be compensation for disturbance.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I understand from that that it does affect the arbitrations. As the Lord Advocate has pointed out, arbitration may result in the acceptance of a lower rent or a, claim for compensation. But in neither ease is this rating relief to be taken into account. That is absolutely satisfactory to me, and I am very grateful to the Lord Advocate.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Before the Amendments are accepted by the Government,
may I draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that the Government here are admitting a very valuable principle—the principle that this rating relief in agricultural land and heritages should accrue in a very large measure to the farmer and should not accrue to the landowner. We had that matter discussed at length the other day, and we received advice upon it, but to-day the Government tacitly admit that by putting this Clause into the Act no arbiter in future is to be allowed to make calculations upon de-rating when he is fixing rent. I should like to know from the Lord Advocate why, if this Clause is right and proper for agricultural land and heritages, something similar ought not to be imported into the Bill to deal with industrial lands and heritages. If it is right that the proprietor of agricultural land should not be permitted to absorb by means of increased rents the money provided by the Treasury for de-rating, then is it not also equally right that provision should be made in this Measure to prevent the owner of mineral royalties—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That question does not come under this Clause.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I merely want to ask for information as to why it is that the Government should differentiate. There are, in this Measure, references to industrial lands and heritages. There are references to agricultural lands and heritages, and I am simply asking for information from the Lord Advocate as to why it is that the Government should he driven at long last—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am trying to stop the hon. Member from asking the Lord Advocate a question which it would be out of order for him to answer.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Would I not be in order before I, as a Member of this Committee, consent to the insertion of this Clause to ask why there is differentiation between certain proprietors in Scotland?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member may ask a question like that and may vote against this Clause for this or any other reason, but I cannot allow the Lord Advocate to answer a question as
to why he does not propose to do something which does not arise out of this Clause.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I merely want to get information.

Sir R. HORNE: The hon. Member is simply asking an academic question. He is not asking a question as to anything in this Clause.

Mr. JOHNSTON: With great respect, I would draw your attention, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, to the fact that this applies to agricultural land. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) will permit the to say that there is a differentiation. The proprietors of agricultural land are being prohibited from raising the rents as a result of de-rating, and I am asking why a similar prohibition or deterrent should not be placed upon the owners of industrial land and heritages.

Sir R. HORNE: That is merely an hypothetical question.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have definitely ruled that this matter cannot be discussed on this Clause. The hon. Member has given the Committee to understand that he wishes for something else to be included. He cannot go into the question here as to whether it should or should not be included.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I will argue no further about industrial land and heritages, but merely express the opinion that we have had no explanation from the Government as to why there should be discrimination against a particular set of proprietors of land in Scotland. Before this Clause passes, perhaps it may be in order to ask for an explanation from the Government as to why they are prepared to discriminate in this matter.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time.

Amendments made to the proposed new Clause:

In line 1, at the beginning, insert the word "Neither."

In line 2, after "1926," insert the words
nor the amounts recoverable by occupiers from owners under Section thirty-three of this Act.

Leave out the word "not."—[Sir A. Sinclair.]

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, be added to the Bill," put, and agreed to.

NEW CLAusE.—(Provision for treatment of sick persons.)

(1) It shall be competent for the county council of a county or the town council of a large burgh to submit for the approval of the Department of Health a scheme for the re-organisation of the hospital facilities at the disposal of the council with a view to the provision of treatment for sick persons residing within their area and the Department before giving their approval shall have regard to any other facilities for treatment of any such sick persons including those provided by any voluntary hospital or other institution.

(2) It shall also be competent for any such council as aforesaid to make a representation to the Department of Health that the hospital facilities available are inadequate for the reasonable requirements of sick persons residing within their area and to submit a scheme for the extension of such facilities, and the Department, before approving such scheme, shall satisfy themselves by inquiry that hospital accommodation at the disposal of the council, together with the accommodation provided by voluntary hospitals or other institutions, is not reasonably adequate for the needs of the inhabitants of the area and that the council have taken reasonable steps to seek and to continue to secure full co-operation with every voluntary hospital, university, or medical school within or serving the area of the council.

(3) The Department of Health may approve any scheme under this Section either as submitted or with such modifications and amendments as they may think proper.

(4) Where a scheme, with or without modification or amendment, has been approved by the Department of Health it shall be lawful for the county council or town council in accordance with the scheme as approved to provide, furnish, and maintain for the accommodation of sick persons residing within their area hospitals, temporary or permanent, and houses of reception for convalescents, and for that purpose to—

(a) themselves supply such hospital or houses; or
(b) contract for the use of any such hospital or house; or
(c) enter into any agreement with any person having the management of any such hospital or house, or part thereof, on payment of such annual or other sum as may be agreed on; or
(d) utilise any hospital or house or other building belonging to them.

(4) utilise any hospital or house or other building belonging to them.

(5) Two or more such councils as aforesaid may submit a scheme to the Depart-
ment of Health for the provision by one of these councils of hospital facilities for the sick persons residing within the area of the other council or councils and, on the scheme being approved by the Department, each of the councils concerned shall have all powers necessary for carrying the scheme as approved into effect, provided that the provisions of Sub-section (2) of this Section so far as relating to the approval of the Department shall apply with any necessary modification to any such scheme which involves the erection of additional accommodation.

(6) For the purposes of this Section, hospital facilities, so far as the same may hp provided by a council, shall include arrangements with respect to the provision of treatment.

(7) All statutory provisions relating to hospitals for infectious diseases shall with the necessary modifications apply to hospitals and other buildings provided under or in pursuance of this Section, and any expenses incurred by a council under or in pursuance of this Section shall be defrayed by the council in like manner as expenses under the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897.

(8) A scheme made under this Section may be revoked or varied by a subsequent scheme.—[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The object of this Clause is to enable authorities to submit schemes for reorganisation with the view of removing the distinctions between Poor Law patients and the public health patients and to provide for hospital treatment under public health and not under the Poor Law. In the Clause there are safeguards with regard to the voluntary hospitals. One of the objects of the Clause is to secure co-operation between the public authorities, the voluntary hospitals, and the medical schools. The Committee will find in the first Sub-section of the Clause that the schemes for reorganisation have to be submitted to the Secretary of State for Scotland by the various authorities, that is to say, either by the county council or council of the burgh. Subsection (2) gives power to the authorities to spend money in extensions, where the present facilities are inadequate. A scheme has to he submitted, and under the scheme the position of the voluntary hospitals will be safeguarded. The Department will satisfy itself with regard to an appro-
priate scheme by inquiry, not necessarily by a formal inquiry or a local inquiry. Sub-section (3) provides that in the event of the scheme not being approved, in terms, by the Department, they may modify the scheme. They do not require either to accept the scheme in whole or to reject it in whole, but they may modify it or amend it.
6.0 p.m.
Sub-section (4) gives statutory powers to the authorities in connection with general hospital services. At the present time they have only statutory powers with regard to hospitals for infectious diseases. This Sub-section will give them statutory powers with regard not only to infectious diseases hospitals, but also with regard to general hospitals. The statutory powers are to extend to general hospital facilities in the same way that they extend to the infectious diseases hospitals. Sub-section (5) provides that the authorities may give hospital services for those living in another area under schemes; it is also provided that Subsection (2) with regard to the scheme being approved by the Department shall apply. Sub-section (6) gives an extended meaning to the words "hospital facilities." Sub-section (7) stipulates that the statutory provisions relating to hospitals for infectious diseases shall, with the necessary modifications, apply to hospitals for general purposes. I think we shall all agree with the general scope and purpose of the new Clause, and I hope that it will be approved by the Committee.

Mr. STEWART: I should like to know whether we can have a general discussion on the whole of the Clause, or whether the dicussion must be limited to the Amendments.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. James Hope): Perhaps it will be better to have a general discussion, but it must be understood that the hon. Member's colleagues will not desire to anticipate the later Amendments.

Mr. JOHNSTON: But we may formally move them?

The CHAIRMAN: The point I had in mind was that if the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Dr. Shiels) at the end
of a speech on the general discussion, suddenly moved his Amendment which
stands upon the Paper, that would prejudice the position of the hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Stewart). I would suggest that we read the Clause a Second time.

Mr. STEWART: The Amendment which I have on the Paper is to leave out the words "It shall be competent for." This new Clause marks a step forward in the treatment of the sick. For the first time it separates sickness from the Poor Law. It gives the local authorities power to establish hospitals for the treatment of sick persons, but it leaves some flaws, and it would be better that the flaws were amended in the Bill. At this moment I am not entitled to move my Amendment, but I am able to speak generally on the provisions of the new Clause. The Clause says:
It shall be competent for the county council of a county or the town council of a large burgh to submit for the approval of the Department of Health a scheme for the re-organisation of the hospital facilities.
It seems to me that the words "It shall be competent for," constitute a grievous mistake. If we want to make this Clause effective, we must make it obligatory upon every county council and every town council to prepare a scheme for the consideration of the central department. In that way we shall make a step forward. I can visualise, and I am sure that those in the Department of Health can remember, occasions when local authorities have been very dilatory and difficulties have occurred in the case of two authorities, neither of which was prepared to submit a scheme, and the two were not able to agree upon a scheme. I am glad to notice that in this new Clause opportunity is taken to remove the difficulty which now exists in regard to the joining together of schemes. If the Government would accept the Amendments which we shall move subsequently, the new Clause would be strengthened.
Take the position as I visualise it at the moment. Every health authority in the country has power to make provision for infectious disease, without regard to cost. Tuberculosis, which is one of the infectious diseases, is costing in Glasgow £141 per patient for treatment, and the treatment for pulmonary tuberculosis is
costing over £43 per patient. The patients are treated for five months for pulmonary tuberculosis and for two months for other tuberculosis. If this new Clause proceeds, it will make it possible for us to deal with cancer and other diseases, which are not considered at the moment infectious, in a way that we could not deal with them before. If the Government will accept our Amendments, providing that it shall be obligatory upon authorities to submit schemes, we shall make the Clause watertight and perfect, but if we leave it the new Clause, as it stands, a reactionary town council, which is perhaps more concerned about saving money and saving the rates than in spending money in the improvement of health, and thereby ultimately saving money, such a council may refuse to do the work. If we make it obligatory on them, as is proposed in our Amendments, the work will have to be done. I hope that the Lord Advocate will be prepared to accept our Amendments, because I am certain that they will strengthen the new Clause.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I should like to deal with another side of the proposed new Clause. I did not hear the word "compensation" used by the Solicitor-General. I have the privilege of representing some of the most progressive seaside towns in Scotland. These towns have to make arrangements for a very large summer population, and in those arrangements hospital accommodation becomes very prominent. In certain cases the town councils have established very fine hospitals for fever and other cases, and out of the rates they have practically paid off the entire capital cost incurred in building and equipping the hospitals. Under this new Clause, these hospitals will be taken over by the new county authorities and, as far as I can see, no question of compensation arises. It seems to me that as the ratepayers have subscribed out of the rates for building the hospitals and paying off the original capital debt for construction and equipment, they should be refunded by the county authority.

The CHAIRMAN: The matter which is being raised by the hon. and gallant Member is appropriate to Clause 6, and not to the present new Clause. Clause 6 deals with the transfer of property and liabilities. If the hon. and gallant Mem-
ber wishes to raise the question of compensation, he must do it on Clause 6, on Report.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I noticed the words "duties and responsibilities," but they did not seem to cover the cost of buildings and equipments and compensation. The matter seemed to me appropriate to this particular new Clause. However, I will accept your ruling.

The CHAIRMAN: The matter to which the hon. and gallant Member has drawn attention is one between the county authority and the lesser authorities. That hardly arises on this new Clause. The hon. and gallant Member must deal with it on Clause 6, on Report, if he wishes to raise it.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: In that case I will merely ask the Lord Advocate to bear in mind that there is this general feeling in regard to cases like this.

Dr. DRUMMOND SHIELS: As the hon. Member for the St. Rollox Division (Mr. Stewart) has said, we regard this part of the Bill much more favourably than some of its other sections. While we agree with the main principles of the proposed new Clause there are certain features of it which we would like to see altered so that the Clause might be really effective when put into operation. In the first place, it deals with the reorganisation of hospital facilities in a district. Everybody knows that as far as the larger industrial districts in Scotland and England are concerned the hospital arrangements are in a more or less chaotic condition. Reorganisation in these cases is absolutely essential if the full facilities available in the public and voluntary hospitals are to be utilised. We feel that the words "it shall be competent" leaves us in the same old position with regard to reactionary or lazy authorities. There may be no scheme for reorganisation where the need for it may be very urgent, and we may, on the other hand, have a, council applying for a reorganisation in an area where there is not so much need.
If what I have said is true of the first Sub-section of this new Clause, it is much more true of the second Subsection, which deals with the extension of hospital services. One of the hopeful features of this Sub-section is that it
provides some remedy for the serious condition of our voluntary hospitals as regards their accommodation. The MacKenzie Commission, which reported in December, 1925, gave the total number of voluntary hospital beds in Scotland as 8,589. There has probably been an increase since that time, but they estimated that 3,600 additional beds were immediately needed in order to provide the accommodation necessary. And that need is at least as great to-day. The Edinburgh Royal Infirmary, which everyone agrees is one of the best-equipped voluntary hospitals in the country, has a waiting list of over 2,000 people, many of them being surgical and medical cases, including cancer cases. It is a matter of great sorrow to those who have any acquaintance with the work of this institution that there should be a waiting list at all. It is the same in regard to Glasgow and, indeed, the voluntary hospitals in Scotland, admittedly, do not at the present time provide anything but partially for the needs of the community. In addition to this number of beds, we have in the Poor Law hospitals and sick wards of Poorhouses, 6,100 beds. Of that number, 4,285 are grouped in the larger Poor Law hospitals. One effect of this new Clause will be that in those cases where the Poor Law beds are not fully occupied, as is sometimes the case, they will be available to the local authority for the needs of the sick people in the district. It is surely even more necessary that immediate steps should be taken, seeing that there are these facilities, to prepare a scheme not only for coordination, but for making the necessary additions and extensions in areas which quite evidently require it. There is a very strong reason why that should be done as a big gap will still be left.
I should like to ask a question with regard to the inquiry which is to be held. In the first Sub-section the department is able to decide on the information given to them without any inquiry at all, but, in the second case, they are evidently to hold an inquiry. I should like to know whether it is to be a public inquiry with witnesses, whether it is likely to be an expensive inquiry, with counsel representing the various conflicting authorities, and whether people with vested interests will be able to
object to the necessary extensions and either defeat the object of the local authority or add considerably to its expenses in establishing approval of the proposed scheme. Various other matters arise in connection with this subject but the most -important of these are in connection with a later Clause. All I desire to say now is that hon. Members on this side give general approval to the objects and purposes of the new Clause, but we feel that these powers for reorganisation and extensions should be made compulsory. We have plently of compulsion in the Bill already and surely this is one of the few matters in which compulsion is desirable. The needs of the sick and suffering are involved. If these powers are made compulsory, and if the inquiry which is to be held is not to be of a vexatious or expensive nature, then hon. Members on this side will be satisfied.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I join in the approval which has been given to this Clause as a whole. We know how successfully the question of hospital accommodation has been grappled with in some parts of Scotland, but, at the same time, I hope the Government will not fail to give the fullest possible consideration to the needs of communities in other parts of the country. We have reason to believe that there is a desire to centralise the hospital accommodation in Caithness and Sutherlandshire at Inverness. That is a proposal to which we strongly object. We can provide ample accommodation for ordinary cases, and the more serious cases would prefer to go to Glasgow or Edinburgh rather than to Inverness. I listened with great sympathy to the point put by the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Lieut.-Colonel Moore). We all know what fine hospitals have been erected in the burghs to which he referred; and I hope the point he put will be taken into account. At the same time, I cannot help but reflect that if only people would go further north to Caithness and Sutherland they would find holiday resorts where the hospital accommodation might not be quite so up-to-date but where the air is the finest and the surroundings are the healthiest in the world.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: This is a very gratifying proposal as far as the principle of the new Clause is concerned. There is, undoubtedly, a great necessity for
re-organisation in the matter of hospitals and hospital accommodation in Scotland. We are all well aware of the distressful condition of many of them from the financial point of view, but at the same time we must not forget that our working people have responded splendidly to the appeals which have been made on behalf of voluntary hospitals. The Government are now laying down a plan which will undoubtedly be of immense advantage to those who are under the necessity of attending these institutions, and we hope they will accept an Amendment to make it compulsory on local authorities to prepare schemes, otherwise we shall find laxity on the part of some councils in the preparation and development of much needed schemes. Having taken a step which will be of great advantage, I think we should urge the Government to complete and perfect their proposal by making it explicit in the Bill that county councils shall act in this matter.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: This is, undoubtedly, an admirable new Clause, and I do not think much objection can be taken to any of the proposed Amendments. There is one Amendment, however, on line 8 which I do not think will read. The Amendment says:
It shall be the duty of any such council as aforesaid to make a representation to the Department of Health.
You cannot tell every town council that it is their duty to make representations when, in point of fact, it will not be their duty to do so. The point made by the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Lieut.-Colonel Moore), which was ruled out of order, will come up, I believe, on Report. If it was incompetent for him to deal with it at this stage it is equally incompetent for me to deal with now, but I should like to say this, that in Oban we have splendid hospital facilities already for the whole district, and they are splendidly managed. I understood that it is within the power of the Secretary of State not to transfer this accommodation into the hands of any other body. In that district we have adequate provision in the matter of hospital accommodation, and we have a seaside burgh which will vie in salubrity with any of the burghs represented by the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs, and which exceeds in salubrity those districts in the North represented by the hon. and gallant Member for Caithness and
Sutheriandshire (Sir A. Sinclair). These facilities have been provided partly by voluntary effort and partly out of the rates and, therefore, I hope the Secretary of State, in the exercise of his discretion, will not hand these splendid facilities, locally provided, to other hands.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I must say a few words in reply to the speeches that have been made. First of all, I would express gratitude for the welcome given to the great scheme that is outlined in this Clause. I am only sorry that neither my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, nor my hon. and gallant Friend the Under-Secretary, was able to be here tonight. They are experts in this matter, and I cannot pretend to be. It is well to realise that this is a proposal for including in one general scheme of treatment not only the poor or pauper sick persons and persons suffering from infectious disease, but also the ordinary sick person. That, of course, is a somewhat novel experiment, though a very desirable one. We feel that it would be a bit hard and unwise to make the preparation of schemes peremptory or mandatory in the way suggested by one of the Amendments on the Paper; but I want to make it clear that the Clause does not mean that there is no duty placed on the local authorities. Hon. Members will remember that under Clause 50 every local authority is bound to exercise its functions up to a certain standard, and to provide adequately for the health of the people of its district. The word "function" is defined as including not only duties but powers, and I as a lawyer say undoubtedly that the power which is conferred on the local authority under this proposed new Clause is a power which it will be bound to exercise so far as Clause 50 is concerned.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: The matter will be carried to the point of compulsion if that should be found to be necessary?

The LORD ADVOCATE: It is difficult to put on the local authority a direct mandatory duty to provide a scheme in every case, and to start straight away with it whether it may be absolutely essential or not. We think the preferable course, especially in a new proposal of this kind, is to say "We give you this power, and that power being available, you must exercise it where otherwise
the health of the people under your control is being seriously damaged."The view of the Government is that the protection of Clause 50 is a wise protection.

Dr. SHIELS: Does the Lord Advocate's statement mean that in future, if a local authority has not put forward a scheme when in the opinion of the Department the conditions of the locality justify such a procedure, it is liable to have its grant reduced?

The LORD ADVOCATE: Yes, Sir. This is an important matter. It will be seen that in Clause 50 there is given power to reduce the grant
if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the council have failed to achieve or maintain a reasonable standard of efficiency in the discharge of their functions relating to public health …
When we turn to the definition Clause on page 53 of the Bill we find that the word "functions" is defined as including "powers and duties" Undoubtedly this new Clause embodies powers. Therefore, I say that if the exercise of this power is essential to the maintenance of an efficient standard of health, not only for the poor and those suffering from infectious disease but for the people of the district under a local authority's control, then Clause 50 comes into operation.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be added to the Bill."

Mr. STEWART: I regret that the Lord Advocate has not been able to meet us altogether, and despite what he has said about the powers mentioned in Clause 50, I have had experience enough to know that such powers it is very difficult to put into operation in the case of a refractory town council, and that even with a Board of Health anxious and willing to do things, where it has met a town council or county council that was unwilling to act, it has taken years before that local authority was compelled to act. For the time being we accept the position taken up by the Lord Advocate. None the less I regret, and I believe that he also in future will regret, that this was not made a mandatory instruction to local authorities.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Recovery of expenses of treatment of sick.)

(1) It shall be lawful for the county council of every county and the town council of every large burgh to recover from any person who has been maintained by them in any institution, other than as an inmate of an institution for the purpose of receiving treatment for infectious disease, or from any person legally liable to maintain that person, a reasonable charge in respect of the expenses incurred by the council in the maintenance and treatment of that person, or, if the council are satisfied that the person from whom such charge is recoverable is unable by reason of circumstances other than his own default to pay the whole of such charge such part thereof, if any, as he is in the opinion of the council able to pay.
(2) For the purpose of this section "institution" means any hospital, maternity home, or other residential institution.
(3) Nothing in this section shall affect any right which a council may have under any enactment or otherwise to recover expenses other than the charge in respect thereof to which the foregoing provisions of this section apply. —[The Lord Advocate.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause relates to a different aspect of the matter that was dealt with in the last Clause. At the present time the Poor Law authority has power to recover expenses for the treatment of poor persons from those who are legally liable for the maintenance of those persons, and of course if a poor person has some money put away somewhere, equally the Poor Law authority is entitled to recover from that poor person. We propose that all the hospitals under the new sick persons scheme shall be put more or less on the same basis. Of course that Poor Law rower will remain with the new body. Obviously it will be undesirable to discriminate between the hospitals or between the patients other than the Poor Law patients by making the other hospitals or the other persons free. The only result would be to deter local authorities from doing what we wish them to do, namely, remove the so-called stigma of pauperism from the sick poor; it would be a deterrent against taking them out of the category of the sick poor. The wise way is to leave a general discretion all over the field for
recovering expenses where it is reasonable that recovery should take place of a sum that reasonably represents the cost.
There is the exception in the case of infectious disease, and the reason for that is obvious: According to the customary practice they are compulsorily removed, so to speak, for the benefit of the community at large. The right of recovery from persons other than the actual patient is quite familiar not only under the Poor Law but in other cases. It is done under the Children Act, 1908, and under the Education (Scotland) Act of that year. If a person who is legally liable to maintain is worth what is called powder and shot, it is only fair that he should contribute towards the maintenance and treatment of a patient, and that the burden should not be left on the ratepayers. There is an Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Dr. Shiels) by which he would seek to reverse what is the existing practice with regard to maternity homes—not hospitals. The practice at the present time is to make a reasonable charge where it can reasonably be made. We see no reason for altering that arrangement. The Clause as originally drafted made this duty obligatory for the local authority. It is now optional.
Another improvement has been made in the Clause. There was a long definition of the expenses. That, obviously, was a very unsatisfactory basis. An institution may have a radiological clinic —I am not sure whether that is the right description—and treatment in it would enormously increase the cost of treating a patient. We have therefore adopted the simple phrase:
a reasonable charge in respect of the expenses incurred by the council in the maintenance and treatment of that person.
I understand that at the present time, in the case of maternity schemes, there are scales which are generally recognised as being of a fair standard, and that there is no difficulty in ascertaining what Is a reasonable charge.

Mr. STEWART: I am glad to notice that the department has withdrawn the cruel and harsh Clause that was originally drafted on this subject of recovery of expenses, and that some
notice has been taken of suggestions and Amendments emanating from this side of the Committee. The Clause is now not as bad as it was originally. The Clause still provides for legal recovery of expenses from those who are legally liable. That is extending to public health what is at present applicable to the Poor Law. It may be that the charge will be recoverable. Under the Maternity and Child Welfare Act, 1915, we have provided maternity hospitals and clinics and nursing homes, and otherwise extended maternity and child welfare work. Now we are to make a charge. We have 2,600 patients in the year in the maternity hospital in Glasgow. It costs us, on an average, £6 15s., and at the moment we are recovering, on the average, 15s. Now we are to go further and we are asked to pursue those who are legally liable for a patient's upkeep. It may be that a patient has a grandfather who has a few pounds. If so, we are to go after him to recover the cost of the patient's treatment. We are spending £116,000 on maternity and child welfare. The Government, at the moment, find £53,000. We are being asked, in the name of the development of public health, to take this retrograde step, and we are asked to do so in order to meet a liability which the community has gladly borne. No desire has been expressed by any health authority that this step should be taken. I hope those who are in power will see to it, on the Report stage, that this matter is dealt with on the lines I have indicated, as far as functions connected with maternity and child welfare are concerned. I notice that the Lord Advocate shakes his head. If I am misstating the case, I shall be glad to be told so.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I am not suggesting that.

Mr. STEWART: Then I take it I am not misstating the case. The Lord Advocate knows better than I do what is the law.

The LORD ADVOCATE: What I meant to convey was that we are not prepared to consider the matter between now and the Report stage.

Mr. STEWART: Then, of course, we shall be under the necessity of taking a Division on the matter and trying to get
public opinion to support us. If I were only concerned with electioneering, I should be very glad that the Lord Advocate and the Department had taken up this position. The people of Glasgow and of Scotland have no desire that every person who is legally liable should be made responsible for these expenses. I have already referred to the cost of these institutions. In the case of a costly institution it is going to run these people into a tremendous amount of money. Every person treated in the infections diseases hospital in Glasgow costs over 54s. per week.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: This Clause does not apply to infectious diseases.

Mr. STEWART: I want to draw a moral. I want to point out how heavy the charge will be. Further, you are going to have this thing carried out under the old inquisitorial method of the Poor Law. Of necessity you will set up committees, and of necessity these committees will investigate, and one committee will come to one decision and another committee to another. I have been through it all. I know of what I am speaking, and I do not desire to see this proposal carried out. Believing 'as I do that this is a backward step, I hope that the Committee will support us, and that we will defeat the Government on this point.

Dr. SHIELS: I am glad to think that this new Clause has been amended in the direction suggested by Amendments on the Paper in the name of hon. Members on this side, and to that extent I think it is a great improvement on the original Clause. The use of the word "reasonable" is also a great improvement on the former wording, which left the patient or the patient's relatives liable for a sum based on the full cost of maintenance and treatment and of running the institution divided by the number of patients in the institution. I had armed myself with a great many figures showing the different costs per head, of maintenance and treatment, in different institutions, but these I am now able to spare the Committee. As the hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Stewart) has said, while we are glad that the Clause has been modified, we protest against the distinction still
drawn between infectious and other diseases. It is obviously a rather cynical motive which leads to infectious diseases being treated free by the public authority. The reason is that the patients are not only a danger to themselves, but to every person in the community from the lowest to the highest. If a person has some organic or surgical disease, like cancer or appendicitis—well, it is their own disease and they keep it and they either die or get better, but there is no danger to the rest of the community. We live in an age, however, when the former crude ideas on these matters are no longer so generally held, and this party, at any rate, stands for the full resources of medical and surgical science being available to the poorest and humblest member of the community.
Therefore, in spite of the improvement which has been made, we protest against the retention of the distinction between those suffering from venereal and other infectious diseases on the one hand, and those suffering from general diseases on the other. I should like to reinforce also, what has been said about maternity hospitals. A great deal is being done in connection with the subject of maternal mortality and one proposal which seems likely to be fruitful is that, instead of one big maternity hospital, there should be a number of smaller maternity hospitals in different parts of the town or the county where patients could be more readily and quickly attended and where a certain amount of isolation could be secured in cases where there was an infective condition. There is great scope for this development, because we know that diseases associated with these conditions are responsible, not only for many deaths, but for a great deal of chronic ill-health. We want to encourage the most ample provision for maternity hospitals. Yet, in spite of the optional nature of this Clause, and in spite of the word "reasonable," it is still possible under it, that a maternity hospital would have charges so high that women who required the treatment very badly would not he able to take advantage of its facilities. If even one woman who needs these facilities is deprived of them because of these charges—whether they are reasonable or otherwise—then I think it is a blot on the Bill.
When we reduce this proposition to the extreme of absurdity and say what is true that a person suffering from venereal disease is to have treatment covering, perhaps, two years and costing a very large sum and is to have it entirely free, while the poor or working-class mother who needs maternity hospital treatment is to be charged for it, at the discretion—which may or may not be wisely exercised—of a local authority, then, I think, we reach a position which is impossible to defend. Therefore, I ask the Lord Advocate very strongly to concede the exemption of maternity hospitals from the general operation of the Clause. In regard to the question of recovery from relatives, it is quite true that the Poor Law provisions are carried into this Measure and that it will be the duty of a local authority to recover from people legally poor in accordance with the provisions set forth here, but it is not necessary in the case of the new comers. We ought not to be afraid to make a distinction here, if the effect as a whole is good, and if we can wipe out, for one section of the sick poor, this necessity of a relative, who may not be interested in the patient or willing to pay, being forced into Court to pay. I hope this suggestion will be considered, and I emphasise the question of the exemption of the maternity hospitals from the payment section, concerning which proposal, I am sure, there will be sympathy in all quarters of the Committee.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I wish to add my voice to the protest against the idea of maternity cases being treated in the manner suggested in this proposal. The Committee and the country are familiar with the fact that we have made less progress in the prevention of maternal mortality, than, possibly, in dealing with any other problem of the kind. I remember a speech by the Minister of Health 12 months ago in which he laid it down that it should be the duty of the Government to give first and effective consideration to this problem. This was an excellent opportunity, and I am sorry that Scotland has not led the way in taking advantage of it. I admit that the new Clause is a considerable improvement on the original Clause. We have made some impression on the Government—and every impression we have made on them has, undoubtedly, been in
the interests of the community. But even as it stands, the Clause is objectionable.
7.0.p.m.
I believe that progressive authorities like Glasgow will take advantage of the option and will refrain from making the charge suggested here, but what is going to happen in the less progressive counties? In Scotland, in places where there are very large conservative majorities—I am not using the word "conservative" in the political sense entirely—there will be an inclination to make the charge and, thus, you will have, in some cases, lives lost in order that a few pounds may be saved. I protest very much against that. The whole principle of making a charge to the sick poor or to those responsible for their maintenance for necessary hospital treatment is a bad one. It will frighten them off from taking advantage of the facilities which are there, and we shall have an unnecessary increase in deaths. Scotland will not thank the Government for a policy which sacrifices a number of its people to the saving of a few pounds of the richer ratepayers and taxpayers.

Mr. SHINWELL: There was one observation which fell from the lips of the Lord Advocate to which I would refer. He said that this proposal would to some extent remove the stigma of pauperism. As I understand that, it means that, if you charge people for treatment, even although they find some difficulty in meeting the charge, they are protected from the accusation of pauperism. I cannot see the advantage of that. It seemed to me that when the Lord Advocate made that observation he was talking with his tongue in his cheek. I want to draw attention to a very remarkable anomaly in this Clause. We have been told that it has been considerably improved because it is no longer mandatory. I would direct attention to the fact that in the majority of other optional Clauses there is no such language as in this Clause. Here we speak of a proposal which may be adopted by a local authority as being lawful and the Clause begins with the words "It shall be lawful." If it were intended to be purely optional in character, the Government might have introduced the word "may" In all other Clauses that word appears and
clearly makes them optional. In this Clause it is only optional in part and there is a direct inducement to a local authority to exercise the powers contained in the Clause. From that standpoint we regard it as defective.
The Lord Advocate said that there was a discretion vested in the local authority to charge or abstain from charging as they thought fit. It is clear that that depends largely on the political calibre of the members of that local authority. If they are representatives of the Labour party they will absain from charging; if they happen to be members of the Tory party they will charge. It ought not to be left in the hands of the local authority to say whether charges should be made or not. It should be laid down quite definitely that no charge should be imposed upon any person who is compelled from whatever cause to receive treatment in an institution. We are told that it is desirable to make an exception in the case of infectious disease. That means that, if one is a danger to one's self, one is to be mulcted for treatment, but, if one happens to be a, danger not only to one's self but to the community, then the community is to be charitably disposed and to abstain from charging. The whole things is preposterous. The treatment, which is applied to a person suffering from an infectious disease should be applied equally to a person suffering from any other illness.
I will take a concrete illustration of what might happen if this Clause passes. Take the case of a woman who is compelled to enter a maternity institution. She may have some children who have to be cared for at home. It is clear that in her absence an additional charge is incurred. There is the expense of finding someone competent to look after the home in her absence. In such circumstances which are bound to lead to greater impoverishment, the Government actually places in the hands of a local authority the power to impose charges upon the household which they will find it impossible to meet. It is true that the Government propose that there should be an inquiry into the circumstances of the person called upon to pay. That clearly denotes interrogations and unnecessary questionings to all
of which we offer a very strong protest. There is no need for that. The mere fact that a person requires to enter an institution should in itself be adequate proof without any need for further inquiry. Speaking for myself, I do not regard this modification of the proposal as being in any sense satisfactory. It is very unsatisfactory and grossly inadequate. I hope we shall not only go into the Division Lobby against the Government, but that we will take the first opportunity of repealing what I regard as a most objectionable inquisition.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I would join issue with the last speaker in regard to the optional nature of this Clause. There is no doubt about it. The Clause says: "It shall be lawful." You cannot say: "It shall be optional." That is not a phrase which you can use. The words "It shall be lawful" mean that you shall be entitled to do it. You cannot say "It may be lawful."

Mr. SHINWELL: You can say "A county council or town council may."

Mr. MACQUISTEN: That would not alter the position in the slightest. There would be no difference. The reason for the essential difference made between infectious diseases and other complaints is obviously that when people have infectious diseases they are compulsorily taken to these hospitals and detained, and they would object if charged, that they had been compelled to go there. As to the suggestion that a Labour town council would, of course, not charge, whereas a hard-hearted Tory town council would charge, I am perfectly sure that a Labour town council would charge up to the very hilt any man who refused to join a trade union. Nothing is more certain than that.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: That is self-protection again.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I am glad to see that I have the assent of the hon. Member and that I have correctly interpreted the psychological attitude of the Labour party. It is no use the hon. Member who has just spoken shaking his head in incredulity, because the hon. Member beside him has already given him away. I would also point out that in the second line of this Clause there appear the words "to recover." These fears
that are expressed by my hon. Friends might be perfectly legitimate if pre-payment was an antecedent to treatment, but it is not. The councils are only to recover, and they cannot recover from people who have not got it. We have a saying in the Highlands, which was more applicable after 1788 when the right to wear certain garments distinctive of the Highland people was recognised. They said that you could not deprive them of certain articles of clothing which they did not possess. In the same way the councils have to recover in these cases, and they cannot recover if the people have not the money. I would also point out that they must ask the people for a reasonable charge, and I submit that there are a great many decent people with a comparatively small and moderate income who, if they have any illness, do not want to trouble their families and prefer to go to institutions. They cannot go to a nursing home because anyone who knows anything about nursing homes knows that their charges are absolutely prohibitive. I have heard of cases where they charge 30 guineas a week, a charge which is absolutely prohibitive except to plutocrats. It is prohibitive to people of my class. There are a number of middle-class people who would sooner go to something of this kind and pay two guineas, £2 10s. or £2 15s. a week.

Mr. SHINWELL: Is this a proposal to protect the middle class?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: It all depends upon what you call the middle class. I should say that £2 10s. or £2 15s. a week would be a very small matter for a trade union secretary.

The CHAIRMAN: I cannot help thinking that this is going very far from the subject.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: This Clause would be very beneficial to people of very moderate means who will go to these institutions and who can pay a small charge. The figure which has been mentioned is a reasonable charge for such persons. It is, of course, a large charge for a working man. It could not be paid by him, and it would not be asked. No man in receipt of an engineer's wage could pay £2 145. a week. These charges could not, and would not, be made to them. There is no danger of that at all.
As to the phrase "or from any person legally liable to maintain that person," if that extends to the grandfather, as I believe it does, then it is a bit hard. It is one of the curious features between our law as compared with that of China that with us it is descendant worship and with the Chinese it is ancestor worship. Unless the grandfather is prosperous or has made his money in pre-War days, he will not be in a position to be mulcted in this way. I would, however, point out to hon. Members opposite that our town councils and county councils are in the main very humane and very democratic. One finds that those who object to county council government and town council government say, if ever there is a proposal to abolish those bodies, that it is breaking away from the great principles of democracy. "Taking away home rule" and "The will of the people," and such phrases are poured forth from the other side of the House in the most eloquent speeches. But when you are to leave it to the local people, the people who know the circumstances, to say whether this beneficent institution is to be supported partly by people who have a reasonable charge imposed upon them and are able to pay, then it is quite another matter. Of course, one assumes that the charge will be a reasonable one. If you get a reasonable charge, it will make it all the more possible to keep and develop these institutions, to make them larger, more efficient, and better equipped for the very poor, who will not then have to pay anything at all. That is the logic of this Clause, but if you say that not even the rich—

Mr. KIRKWOOD: We would see to it that there were no rich.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: If everybody conducted their business as the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) suggests, there would be nobody wealthy except the trade union secretaries and—

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Member is inviting a discussion far remote from the Clause.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs attracts me like a magnet, and I cannot help sparking. The Clause says:
If the council are satisfied that the person from whom such charge is recoverable is unable by reason of circumstances other than his own default"…
We do not know what "his own default" might mean. It goes on:
to pay the whole of such charge,
and so on. You could not get a more reasonable provision than that, and I think this Clause gives the poor a better chance. We see the constant outcry in the country about motorists who get into an accident and are taken into a hospital, where they recover, and then they disappear, leaving a heavy charge on the ratepayers. It is a great hardship, and there ought to be power to make such people pay. This Clause is really only directed against the people who ought to pay and do not pay, and when I see a Clause like this, which is going to make people who ought to pay, pay, I cannot understand hon. Members opposite, whose whole attitude on all matters of paying is that the people who very often should not pay should be made to pay, simply because they happen to have got some money, which is an unpardonable offence.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman address himself to the argument put from this side?

The CHAIRMAN: No hon. Member is required to answer any argument.

Mr. JOHNSTON: The question I should like to put to the hon. and learned Member is, How does he justify charging a poor woman for maternity treatment and allowing a person suffering from venereal disease to be treated free?

Mr. MACOUISTEN: That question may come up when we deal with venereal disease cases, but I do not see that there is anything here which says that there is to be a charge for maternity treatment, unless those on whom the patient is dependent can afford to pay. There would be far more opportunities for taking in those who cannot afford, if you had those paying who can afford. I can give hon. Members opposite arguments which, to my humble mind, meet their arguments, but, of course, I cannot give them the understanding to appreciate them, not because I have not
got it to give them, but because, if you sound music to deaf mutes, you cannot expect them to appreciate it. The last Sub-section reads:
Nothing in this Section shall affect any right which a county council may have under any enactment or otherwise to recover expenses other than the charge in respect thereof to which the foregoing provisions of this Section apply.
This Clause really means nothing else than that people who ought to pay are to be asked to pay, and that will mean a better chance for those who cannot pay and who, therefore, will not be asked to pay.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: The argument employed by the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) would be more effective if he had dealt with the reason for the omission from this Clause of a charge for treatment for venereal disease. That is the special point which he advisedly left out of his argument. You have under the Clause the special omission of those affected by venereal disease. What is the difficulty?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: The person afflicted with venereal disease may be a perfectly innocent person, but he may put others in danger, whereas the person who is going to have maternity benefit is not likely to inflict that upon anybody else.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: That might have some significance up in Argyllshire, but we, here, would like to have a serious consideration of this essential point, which the hon. and learned Member advisedly refrains from dealing with. The hon. and learned Member was saying that we might have a case where a person might not have been responsible, but I submit that in any number of cases the persons with venereal disease have been actually responsible for acquiring that disease, and yet we have the Government deliberately leaving out that disease, which does contribute so directly to those terrible conditions affecting public health. That is the line of argument taken by the Government. If it can be discovered, as it can, many a time, in such eases, that there has been individual responsibility, why is there not provision made for such a charge being submitted? We quite understand the hon. and learned Member, who has
quite a knowledge of some of those agencies which are particularly responsible for producing venereal disease, and that is why we have a trifling with this subject, a trifling with a vital question.
I submit that here we have a most remarkable anomaly, namely, that where there is reasonable treatment to be afforded in cases such as maternity, and where you have the Opposition approving of the scheme already agreed to in the previous Clause, concerning the organisation and the linking-up of hospitals, here we have a stultifying Clause applied to eases where, though there may be some funds available, they are not able to pay. I submit that the cases that are likely to go into these public hospitals are not at all those of people whom you could reasonably expect to put pressure upon in order to obtain financial recovery. The generality of cases in those hospitals are those of people who are not able to find the requisite provision in their own home circle. Those who can make such provision naturally retain their own patients at home, or adopt what is perhaps more familiar to the hon. and learned Member, namely, the private nursing home, in cases where there is plenty of money. But why should there be a direct legal incentive, in the first words of the Clause, to the local authorities to obtain recovery of expenses concerning people who cannot afford to nurse their own patients? The Government have had to face the fact of the necessity of making better provision for hospital treatment and have found it necessary—

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Not the Government, but the county councils.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I submit that here you have a marked and very discreditable disparity in the selection of those whom you are to charge for treatment.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Surely the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour) is casting a serious reflection on the local authorities in Scotland. He is assuming that these are authorities consisting of men who have no care for the poor or their interests, men who have no knowledge of those for whom they are
catering and no interest in the y,e11-being of the community, but men who are crushing out the very souls of the poor. I protest, on the part of the local authorities of Scotland that such an attack should be made on them.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: No such attack was made.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: The right hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) and the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Shinwell) referred to the sick poor. There is no mention of the sick poor in this Clause. It is not intended to attack the sick poor, but to help them, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) said. Hon. Members opposite have read into this Clause more than is intended, and they have done so, purely for the purpose of party politics, and I strongly protest against such an attack on the local authorities of Scotland. At the very end of the Clause there are two words that have never yet been mentioned, and they are the words "if any," where the Clause says—
to pay the whole of such charge, such part thereof, if any"—
There is no compulsion on the local authority to charge, and the Government are not responsible for insinuating to the local authorities that they must charge. The charge will only be made if there are funds to meet the charge. In other words, we are going to get the money from those who can afford to pay, so that those who cannot afford will have the advantage of the means of the others who can. I have never listened to a debate in which there was more class politics talked.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time.

Dr. SHIELS: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in line 10, to leave out the words "maternity home."

Question put, "That the words 'maternity home' stand part of the proposed Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 203; Noes. 88.

Division No. 227.]
AYES.
[7.20 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Ford, Sir P. J.
Murchison, Sir Kenneth


Albery, Irving James
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Neville, Sir Reginald J.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Fraser, Captain Ian
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Newton, sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Gates, Percy
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hon W.G. (Ptrsf'ld.)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Gower, sir Robert
Nuttall, Ellis


Atholl, Duchess of
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Oakley, T.


Atkinson, C.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Balniel, Lord
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Perring, Sir William George


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Waiter E.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Hacking, Douglas H.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Berry, Sir George
Hamilton, Sir George
Price, Major C. W. M.


Bevan, S. J.
Hammersley, S. S.
Ralne, Sir Walter


Blundell, F. N.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Reld, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Harrison, G. J. C.
Rentoul, G. S.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Haslam, Henry C.
Ropner, Major L.


Brass, Captain W.
Headlam, Lieut-Colonel C. M.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf''d,Henley)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemoutk)


Briscoe, Richard George
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Rye, F. G.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Salmon, Major I.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks,Newb'y)
Herbert, S. (York.N.R.,Scar. & Wh'by)
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hilton, Cecil
Sandon, Lord


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Savery, S. S.


Burman, J. B.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nut.)
Shepperson, E. W.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Sinclair, Col. T.(Queen's Univ.,Bellst)


Caine, Gordon Hall
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Skelton, A. N.


Campbell, E. T.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cassels, J. D.
Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Smithers, Waldron


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt.R.(Prtsmth.C)
Iveagh, Countess of
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Storry-Deans, R.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Chapman, Sir S.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Christie, J. A.
Lamb, J. Q
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Clayton, G. C.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handew'th)
Tasker, R. Inlgo.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Loder, J. de V.
Templeton, W. P.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Long, Major Eric
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Lougher, Lewis
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Colfox, Major William Phillips
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Herman
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Cooper, A. Duff
Lumley, L. R.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Cope, Major Sir William
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Couper, J. B.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Watson. Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Maclntyre, Ian
Wells, S. R.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
McLean, Major A.
White, Lleut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple


Dalkeith, Earl of
Macmillan, Captain H.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern!


Davies, Maj.Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Macquisten, F. A.
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Wilson, Sir Murrough (Yorks,Richm'd)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Meyer, Sir Frank
Withers, John James


Ellis, R. G.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Womersley, W. J.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-e-M.)
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Erskine, James Malcolm Montelth
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R (Ayr)



Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Moore, Sir Newton J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Fermoy, Lord
Moreing, Captain A. H.
Captain Margesson and Sir Victor Warrender.


Fielden, E. B.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive





NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Broad, F. A.
Day, Harry


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Bromfield, William
Dennison, R.


Ammon, Charles George
Buchanan, G.
Duncan, C.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Cape, Thomas
England, Colonel A.


Barnes, A.
Charieton, H. C.
Garro-Jones, Captain a. M.


Barr, J.
Cluse, W. S.
Gillett, George M.


Batey, Joseph
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)


Bellamy, A.
Compton, Joseph
Griffith, F. Kingsley


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Cove, W. G.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypooll


Briant, Frank
Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Grundy, T. W.




Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Hardle, George D.
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Smith, Rennie (Penlstone)


Hayday Arthur
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Snell, Harry


Hirst, G. H.
Montague, Frederick
Stephen, Campbell


Hollins, A.
Morris, R. H.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Strauss, E. A.


Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Naylor, T. E.
Sutton, J. E.


John, William (Rhondda, Welt)
Owen, Major G.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Kelly, W. T.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Tinker, John Joseph


Kennedy, T.
Potts, John S.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Kirkwood, D.
Richardson, R. (Houahton-le-Spring)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Lansbury, George
Ritson, J.
Welsh, J. C.


Lawrence, Susan
Saklatvala, Shapurji
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Lawson, John James
Scrymgeour, E.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Longbottom, A. W.
Scurr, John
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Lowth, T.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Shield, G. W.
Windsor, Walter


Mackinder, W.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond



MacLaren, Andrew
Shinwell, E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Whiteley and Mr. T. Henderson.

It being after half-past Seven of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 12th December, successively to put forthwith the Questions on any Amendments moved by the Government of which Notice had been given and the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at half-past Seven of the Clock at this day's Sitting.

Question, "That the Clause be added to the Bill," put, and agreed to.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Religious instruction in schools.)

(1) It shall not be lawful for a county council or for the town council of a burgh being a county of a city to discontinue the provision of instruction in religion in terms of the provision of Section seven of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1918, unless and until a resolution in favour of such discontinuance duly passed by the council has been submitted to a poll of the local government electors for the county or burgh taken for the purpose, and has been approved by a majority of electors voting thereat.
(2) A poll under the foregoing Sub-section shall be by ballot and shall be taken in accordance with rules to be made by the Secretary of State, which rules may apply with any necessary modifications any enactments relating to parliamentary or local government elections.—[The Lord Advocate.]

Brought up, and read the First and Second time.

Question, "That the Clause be added to the Bill," put, and agreed to.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Investigation of working of Rules of Fifth Schedule, Parts III and IV.)

The Department of Health shall, before the expiration of the scond fixed grant period, in consultation with such associations of local authorities as appear to them to be concerned and with any local authority with whom consultation appears to them to be desirable, cause an investigation to be made into the working of the rules contained in Parts III and IV of the Fifth Schedule to this Act, and shall cause a report of the result of the investigation to he laid before Parliament.—[The Lord Advocate.]

Brought up, and read the First and Second time.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Declaration of intention as to future increases of local expenditure.)

It is hereby declared that it is the intention of this Act that in the event of substantial additional expenditure being imposed on any class of local authorities by reason of the institution of a new public health or other service after the commencement of this Act provision should be made for increased contributions out of moneys provided by Parliament.—[The Lord Advocate.]

Brought up, and read the First and Second time.

Question put, "That the Clause be added to the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 203; Noes, 90.

Division No. 228.]
AYES.
[7.40 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.


Albery, Irving James
Atholl, Duchess of
Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Atkinson, C.
Berry, Sir George


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Bevan, S. J.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Balniel, Lord
Blundell, F. N.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Oakley, T.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Hacking, Douglas H.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Hamilton, Sir George
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Brass, Captain W.
Hammersley, S. S.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Perring, Sir William George


Briscoe, Richard George
Harrison, G. J. C.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Peto, G. (Somerset. Frame)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Pilcher, G.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Haslam, Henry C.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Henderson,Capt.R.R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Raine, Sir Walter


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)


Surman, J. B.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Rentoul, G. S.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Caine, Gordon Hall
Herbert, S. (York,N.R.,Scar. & Wh'by)
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Campbell, E. T.
Hilton, Cecil
Ropner, Major L.


Cassels, J. D.
Mohier, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Rye, F. G


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth.S.)
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Salmon, Major I.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Chad wick, Sir Robert Burton
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney,N.)
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Chapman, Sir S.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Sandon, Lord


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Iveagh, Countess of
Savery, S. S.


Christie, J. A.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Shepperson, E. W.


Clayton, G. C.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Sinclair, Col. T.(Queen's Univ.(Belf'st.)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Skelton, A. N.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Knox, Sir Alfred
Smithers, Waldron


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Lamb. J. Q.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Cooper, A. Duff
Loder, J. de V.
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Cope, Major Sir William
Long, Major Eric
Storry-Deans, R.


Couper, J. B.
Lougher, Lewis
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Lumley, L. R.
Styles, Captain H. W.


Dalkeith, Earl of
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Davies, Ma|. Geo. F. (Somerset,Yeovil)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Tasker, R. Inigo,


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Templeton, W. P.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Macintyre, Ian
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
McLean, Major A.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell


Ellis, R. G
Macmillan, Captain H.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


England, Colonel A.
Macquisten, F. A.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Mac Robert, Alexander M.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Erskine, James Malcolm Montelth
Margesson, Captain D.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Meyer, Sir Frank
Wayland, Sir William A.


Fermoy, Lord
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Wells, S. R.


Fielden, E. B.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple


Ford, Sir P. J.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. T. C. R. (Ayr)
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Wilson, Sir Murrough (Yorks,Richm'd)


Fraser, Captain Ian
Moreing, Captain A. H.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Withers, John James


Gates, Percy.
Murchison, Sir Kenneth
Womersley, W. J.


Gower, Sir Robert
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)



Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W.G.(Ptrsfld.)
Major Sir George Hennessy and Sir Victor Warrender.


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Nuttall, Ellis



NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Compton, Joseph
Hollins, A.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Cove, W. G.
Hore-Bellsha, Leslie


Ammon, Charles George
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Barnes, A.
Day, Harry
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)


Barr, J.
Dennison, R.
Kelly, W. T.


Batey, Joseph
Duncan, C.
Kennedy, T.


Bellamy, A.
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Kirkwood, D


Benn, Wedgwood
Gillett, George M.
Lansbury, George


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Lawrence, Susan


Briant, Frank
Griffith, F. Kingsley
Lawson, John James


Broad, F. A.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Longbottom, A. W.


Bromfield, William
Grundy, T. W.
Lowth, T.


Buchanan, G.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)


Cape, Thomas
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Mackinder, W.


Charieton, H. C.
Hardle, George D.
MacLaren, Andrew


Cluse, W. S.
Hayday, Arthur
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Hirst, G. H.
MacNeill-Weir, L.




Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Montague, Frederick
Shield, G. W.
Tinker, John Joseph


Morris, R. H.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Naylor, T. E.
Shinwell, E.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Owen, Major G.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Welsh, J. C.


Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Potts, John S.
Snell, Harry
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Stephen, Campbell
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Ritson, J.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Windsor, Walter


Saklatvala, Shapurji
Strauss, E. A.



Scrymgeour, E.
Sutton, J. E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Scurr, John
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. T. Henderson.


Question, "That the Clause be added to the Bill," put, and agreed to.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Power of Department to pay council's contributions to voluntary association or society out of sums payable as General Exchequer Grant.)

Upon application being made to the Department of Health the council of any county or large burgh requesting that the contributions of the council towards the expenses of any voluntary association or society having as its object the promotion of public health services (including services relating to maternity and child welfare, lunacy and mental deficiency, and the welfare of the blind) may be paid directly to the association or society out of the amount payable as the General Exchequer Grant of the council, the said Department may pay such contributions accordingly, and any sums so paid shall be deemed to have been paid as part of that grant.—[The Lord Advocate.]

Brought up, and read the First and Second time.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Contributions by burghs to police expenditure.)

Notwithstanding anything in the provisions of this Act the contribution towards expenditure for the administration of the police apportioned and allocated to any burgh which is supplied with constables by the county shall not be paid by the town council of such burgh out of any rate to

which such contribution or such expenditure would not have been chargeable if this Act had not passed.—[The Lord Advocate.]

Brought up, and read the First and Second time.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of 1 and 2 Geo. V., c. 53, Section 7 (6).)

Sub-section (6) of section seven of the House Letting and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1911 (which relates to deduction to cover cost of collection to be allowed to owners from occupiers' assessments levied on and recovered from the owners) shall from and after the fifteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and twenty-nine, have effect subject to the following amendments:—

(a) The words "in the city of Glasgow two pounds ten shillings per centum; and elsewhere," and the words "except in the city of Glasgow," shall be omitted; and
(b) The words "five pounds," shall be substituted for the words "two pounds ten shillings." wherever they occur.—[The Lord Advocate.]

Brought up, and read the First and Second time.

Question put, "That the Clause be added to the Bill."

The Committee divided Ayes, 213; Noes, 81.

Division No. 229].
AYES.
[7.49 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton


Albery, Irving James
Brass, Captain W.
Chapman, Sir S.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Briant, Frank
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Bridgeman. Rt. Hon. William Clive
Christie, J. A.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Briscoe, Richard George
Clayton, G. C.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Cobb, Sir Cyril


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.


Atholl, Duchess of
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Cohen, Major J. Brunel


Atkinson, C.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks,Newb'y)
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Buckingham, Sir H.
Conway, Sir W. Martin


Balniel, Lurd
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Cooper, A. Duff


Barclay-Harvey C. M.
Burman, J. B.
Cope, Major Sir William


Beamish, Rear-Adimiral T. P. H.
Burton, Colonel H. W.
Couper, J. B.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Calne, Gordon Hall
Courtauld, Major J. S.


Berry, Sir George
Campbell, E. T.
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.


Betterton, Henry B.
Cassels, J. D.
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)


Bevan, S. J.
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)


Blundell, F. N.
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Dalkeith, Earl of


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Cayzer, Maj.SIr Herbt.R.(Prtsmth.C)
Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Davies, Maj. Geo.F. (Somerset,Yeovil)


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Davies, Dr. Vernon


Eden, Captain Anthony
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthberi
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Ellis, R. G.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Ropner, Major L.


England, Colonel A.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Ruggies-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A


Erskine Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Lamb, J. Q
Rye, F. G.


Fairfax, Csptain J. G.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Salmon, Major I.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Loder, J. de V.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Fermoy, Lord
Long, Major Eric
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Fielden, F B.
Lougher, Lewis
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Ford, Sir P. J.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Sandon, Lord


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Savery, S. S.


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Lumley, L. R.
Shepperson, E. W.


Fraser, Captain Ian
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ.,Bellst)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Skelton, A. N.


Gates, Percy
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Goff Sir Park
Macintyre, Ian
Smithers, Waldron


Gower, Sir Robert
McLean, Major A.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Macmillan, Captain H.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Grattan-Doyte, Sir N.
Macquisten, F. A.
Stanley,. Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G.F.


Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Storry-Deans, R.


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Meyer, Sir Frank
Strauss, E. A.


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Styles, Captain H. W.


Hacking, Douglas H.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Hamilton, Sir George
Moore Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Tasker, R Inigo.


Hammersley, S. S.
Moore Sir Newton J.
Templeton, W. P.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Moreing, Captain A. H.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Harrison, G. J. C.
Morris, R. H.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Harvey, Major S. E (Devon, Totnes)
Murchison, Sir Kenneth
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Haslam, Henry C.
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph
Ward, Lt.-Col.A.L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Henderson, Capt. R.R. (Oxf'd,Henley)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Nicholson, Col. Rt.Hn.W.G.(Ptrsl'ld.)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Nuttail, Ellis
Wells, S. R.


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Oakley, T.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple.


Herbert, S. (York, N.R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Williams, A. M. (Cornvill, Northern)


Hilton, Cecil
Owen, Major G.
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Wilson, Sir Murrough (Yorks,Richm'd)


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Hope, Sir Harry (Fortar)
Perring, Sir William George
Withers, John James


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Womersley, W. J.


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Hore-Bellsha, Leslie
Pilcher, G.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Power, Sir John Cecil



Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney.N.)
Price, Major C. W. M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Raine, Sir Walter
Captain Margesson and Sir Victor Warrender.


Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Reld, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)



Iveagh, Countess of
Rentoul, G. S.



NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hayes, John Henry
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hirst, G. H.
Scrymgeour, E.


Ammon, Charles George
Hollins, A.
Scurr, John


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Barr, J.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Shield, G. W.


Batey, Joseph
Kelly, W. T.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Bellamy, A.
Kennedy, T.
Shinwell, E.


Benn, Wedgwood
Kirkwood, D.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Lansbury, George
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Broad, F. A.
Lawrence, Susan
Snell, Harry


Bromfield, William
Lawson, John James
Stephen, Campbell


Buchanan, G.
Longbottom, A. W.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Cape, Thomas
Lowth, T.
Sutton, J. E.


Charleton, H. C.
Lunn, William
Thomas. Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Cluse, W. S.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Mackinder, W.
Tinker, John Joseph


Compton, Joseph
MacLaren, Andrew
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Cove, W. G.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Day, Harry
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Welsh, J. C.


Dennison, R.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Duncan, C.
Montague, Frederick
Whitelev, W.


Gillett, George M.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wilson, R. J. Narrow)


Grundy, T. W.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Windsor, Walter


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Potts, John S.



Hardle, George D.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hayday, Arthur
Ritson, J.
Mr. T. Henderson and Mr A. Barnes.


Question, "That the Clause he added to the Bill," put, and agreed to.

FIRST SCHEDULE.— (Part I: Statutory provisions regarding functions of town, councils of small burghs transferred to county councils. Part II: Functions of town councils of small burghs relating to the following matters which, so far as not transferred by this Act, may be transferred to county councils by order of Secretary of State.)

Amendments made:

In page 56, line 29, at the end, insert the words:

"17. The Rats and Mice (Destruction) Act, 1919."

In line 34, at the end, insert the words:
22. The Wireless Telegraphy Blind Persons Facilities Act, 1926."—[The Lord Advocate.]

Question put, "That this Schedule, as amended, be the First Schedule to the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 200; Noes, 91.

Division No. 230.]
AYES.
17.59 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut -Colonel
Erskine, James Malcolm Montelth
Macmillan, Captain H.


Albery, Irving James
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Macquisten, F. A.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Fermoy, Lord
Maitland. Sir Arthur D. Steel-


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Fielden, E. B.
Margesson, Captain D,


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Ford, Sir P. J.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Meyer, Sir Frank


Atkinson, C.
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Mitchell, S (Lanark, Lanark)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Fraser, Captain Ian
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)


Balniel, Lord
Fremantie, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Gates, Percy
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Goff, Sir Park
Moreing, Captain A. H.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Gower, Sir Robert
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Berry, Sir George
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Murchison, Sir Kenneth


Betterton, Henry B.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph


Bevan, S. J.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Neville, Sir Reginald J.


Blundell, F. N.
Grenfelt, Edward C. (City of London)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Nicholson. Col. Rt. Hn.W. G. (Ptrsfld.)


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Hacking, Douglas H.
Nuttall, Ellis


Brass, Captain W.
Hamilton, Sir George
Oakley, T.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hammersley, S. S.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Briscoe, Richard George
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Perkins. Colonel E. K.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth. Kennington)
Peto, sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Brown, Brig. Gen. H.C, (Berks, Newb'y)
Haslam, Henry C.
Pitcher, G.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Henderson, Capt.R.R. (Oxl'd, Henley)
Price, Major C. W. M.


Burman, J. B.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Ralne, Sir Walter


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P
Reld, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)


Caine, Gordon Hall
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Rentoul, G. 8.


Campbell, E. T.
Hennesty, Major Sir G. R. J.
Rhys. Hon. C. A. U.


Cassels J. D.
Herbert, S.(York, N.R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Ropner, Major L.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt.R.(Prtsmth.S.)
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Rye, F. G.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Salmon, Major I.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Chapman, Sir S.
Hudson, Capt. A. (J. M. (Hackney,N.)
Samuel. Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Christie, J. A.
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Clayton, G. C.
Hunter-Weston. Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Sandon, Lord


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Iveagh, Countess of
Savery, S. S.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Jackson. Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Shaw. R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Shepperson, E. W.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Sinclair,Col. T. (Queen's Univ.,Belfast)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Kintoch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Skelton, A. N.


Cooper, A. Duff
Knox, Sir Alfred
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Couper, J. B.
Lamb, J. Q.
Smithers, Waldron


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Locker-Lamnson, Cora, O. (Handsw'th)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Long, Major Eric
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Lougher, Lewis
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lucas-Tooth, sir Hugh Vere
Storry-Deans, H.


Davies. Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset,Yeovil)
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Herman
Stuart, Hun. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Lumley, L. R.
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Eden, Captain Anthony
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Sugden. Sir Wilfrid


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Tasker, R. Inlgo.


Ellis, R. G.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Templeton, W. P.


England, Colonel A.
Macintyre, Ian
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Erskine, Lord (Somerset,Weston-s.-M.)
McLean, Major A.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell


Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Wells, S. R.
Womersley, W. J.


Wallace, Captain D. E.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Ward, Lt.-Col.A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)
Williams. A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)



Warrender, Sir Victor
Wilson, Sir Murrough (Yorks,Richn'd)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Major Sir William Cope and Captain Bowyer.


Wayland, Sir William A.
Withers, John James



NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hayday, Arthur
Ritson, J.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Saklatvala, Shaparji


Ammon, Charles George
Hirst, G. H
Scrymgeour, E.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hollins, A.
Scurr, John


Batey, Joseph
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Bellamy, A.
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Shield, G. W.


Benn, Wedgwood
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Shinwell, E.


Briant, Frank
Kelly, W. T.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Broad, F. A.
Kennedy, T.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Bromfield, William
Kirkwood, D.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Buchanan, G.
Lansbury, George
Snell, Harry


Cape, Thomas
Lawrence, Susan
Stephen, Campbell


Charleton, H. C.
Lawson, John James
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Cluse, W. S.
Longbottom, A. W.
Strauss, E. A.


Clynes, Hon. John R.
Lowth, T.
Sutton, J. E.


Compton, Joseph
Lunn, William
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Cove, W. G.
Mackinder, W.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
MacLaren, Andrew
Tinker, John Joseph


Day, Harry
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Dennison, R.
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Duncan, C.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Welsh, J. C.


Garro-Jones, Captain G M.
Montague, Frederick
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Gillett, George M.
Morris, R. H.
Whiteley, W.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Owen, Major G.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Grundy, T. W.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Windsor, Walter


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.



Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Potts, John S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hardie, George D
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. Hayes.

SECOND SCHEDULE.—(Burghs united.)

Amendments made:

In page 57, line 13, leave out Paragraph (1).

In line 14, leave out Paragraph (2).

In line 16, leave out the words "Anstruther Wester and Pittenweem" and insert instead thereof the words "and Anstruther Wester."—[The Lord Advocate.]

THIRD SCHEDULE.—(Discontinued grants.)

Question put, "That this Schedule be the Third Schedule to the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 202; Noes, 89.

Division No. 231.]
AYES.
[8.8 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Clayton, G. C.


Albery, Irving James
Briscoe, Richard George
Cobb, Sir Cyril


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D,


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Cohen, Major I. Brunei


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Collox, Major Wm. Phillips


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks,Newb'y)
Conway. Sir W. Martin


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Buckingham, Sir H.
Cooper, A. Duff


Atholl, Duchess of
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Couper, J. B.


Atkinson, C.
Burman, J. B.
Courtauld, Major J. S.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Burton, Colonel H. W.
Courthope Colonel Sir G. L.


Balniel, Lord
Calne, Gordon Hall
Crooke, J. Smedloy (Derltend)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Campbell, E. T.
Dalkeith, Earl of


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H,
Cassels, J. D.
Davis, Maj. Geo. P. (Somerset,Yeovil)


Bann, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Davies, Dr. Vernon


Berry, Sir George
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Eden, Captain Anthony


Betterton, Henry B.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth.S.)
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Bevan, S. J.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Ellis, R. G.


Blundell, F. N.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
England, Colonel A.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Erskine, Lord (Somerset,Weston-s.-M.)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Chapman, Sir S.
Erskine, James Malcolm Montelth


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.


Brass, Captain W.
Christie, J. A.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.


Fermoy, Lord
Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)
Ruggles-Brisc, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Fielden, E. B.
Loder, J. de V.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Ford, Sir P. J.
Long, Major Eric
Rye, F. G.


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Lougher, Lewis
Salmon, Major I.


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Fraser, Captain Ian
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Lumley, L. R.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Gales, Percy
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Sandon, Lord


Goff, Sir Park
Macdonald, Capt. P. O. (I. of W.)
Savery, S. S.


Gower, Sir Robert
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Macintyre, lan
Shepperson, E. W.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
McLean, Major A.
Sinclair,Col. T. (Queen's Univ.,Belfast)


Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Macmillan, Captain H.
Skelton, A. N.


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Macquisten, F. A.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Gunston, Captain D. W.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Smithers, Waldron


Hacking, Douglas H.
Maltland, Sir Arthur D. Steel
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Harmmersley, S. S.
Margesson, Captain D.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Storry-Deans, R.


Harrison, G. J. C.
Meyer, Sir Frank
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Waldan)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Haslam, Henry C.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Templeton, W. P.


Henderson,Capt.R.R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Moreing, Captain A. H.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell


Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Murchison, Sir Kenneth
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Hennessy, Major sir G. R. J.
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Herbert, S. (York, N. R.,Scar. & Wh'by)
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Hilton, Cecil
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Nicholson, Col. Rt.Hn. W.G.(Ptrsf'ld.)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Nuttall, Ellis
Wavland, Sir William A.


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Oakley, T.
Wells, S. R.


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Ormsby-Gore. Rt. Hon. William
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymplt


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Williams A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney,N).
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Wilson, Sir Murrough (Yorks,Richtn'd)


Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Pitcher, G.
Withers, John James


Iveagh, Countess of
Power, Sir John Cecil
Womersley, W. J.


Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth. Cen'l)
Price, Major C. W. M.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Ralne, Sir Walter
Worthington-Evans, Rt, Hon. Sir L.


King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Reld, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)



Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Rentoul, G. S.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Knox, Sir Alfred
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Major Sir William Cope and Captain Bowyer.


Lamb, J. Q.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell



Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Ropner, Major L.



NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff,, Cannock)
Hayday, Arthur
Ritson, J.


Alexander. A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Scrymgeour, E.


Ammon, Charles George
Hirst, G. H.
Scurr, John


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hollins, A.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Batey, Joseph
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Shield, G. W.


Bellamy, A.
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Benn, Wedgwood
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Shinwell, E.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Briant, Frank
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Broad, F. A.
Kennedy, T.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Bromfield, William
Kirkwood. D
Snell, Harry


Buchanan, G.
Lansbury, George
Stephen, Campbell


Charleton, H. C.
Lawrence, Susan
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Cluse, W. S.
Lawson, John James
Strauss, E. A.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Longbottom, A. W.
Sutton, J. E.


Compton, Joseph
Lowth, T.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Cove, W. G.
Lunn, William
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Mackinder, W.
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
MacLaren, Andrew
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)


Day, Harry
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Dennison, R.
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Welsh, J. C.


Duncan, C.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Montague, Frederick
Whiteley, W


Gillett, George M.
Morris, R. H.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Naylor, T. E.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Owen, Major G.
Windsor, Walter


Grundy, T. W.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)



Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Potts. John S.
Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. Hayes.


Hardle, George D.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)



Question, "That this Schedule, as amended, be the Second Schedule to the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Fourth Schedule (Provisions as to certain payments heretofore payable out of

the Local Taxation (Scotland) account agreed to.

FIFTH SCHEDULE.—(Rules for calculations in respect of General Exchequer Grants.)

The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, in page 59, line 12, at the end, to insert the words:
except that expenditure on any function for the purpose of which a large burgh is included within a county, shall so far as such expenditure relates to the large burgh be assumed to be expenditure by the town council of the burgh.
At the present time services for such purposes as education and the police are supplied by requisition. In estimating the losses which arise in a large burgh it is only fair that their proportion of expenditure on police and education should be regarded as if it was their expenditure for the purpose of calculating the losses in the large burgh. The purpose of this proviso is to make clear that where a large burgh is included within a county for any special purpose any expenses incurred shall be deemed to be incurred directly for calculating the losses of de-rating in that large burgh.

Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: I would like to ask if this Amendment will cover a case which exists in Aberdeen in regard to the harbours and docks which are policed under some special financial arrangement. I would like to know if the General Exchequer Grant will suffer by the amount of this expenditure. If the Lord Advocate's reply is that this proviso applies to Aberdeen I shall be very glad, and the town council of Aberdeen will appreciate it very much. At the present time the policing of the harbour and docks is subject to a special rate, and if the sums spent on policing is going to count for de-rating we shall be very pleased. If this police expenditure is going to be reckoned as ordinary police expenditure will the Secretary for Scotland count it as an expenditure which will rank for the equivalent police grant? We want to know whether this expenditure will be counted for de-rating purposes thus relieving the Commissioners and increasing the General Exchequer Grant.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I am afraid the only assurance I can give, as far as the Amendment under discussion is concerned, is that it has nothing to do with the case raised by the hon. Member
for North Aberdeen (Mr. W. Benn). Take the question of police expenditure. Take a case where a large burgh forms part of the county for this purpose, and does not maintain a separate police force. That proportion is recovered by the county from the large burgh. The object of this Amendment is to ensure that that expenditure shall be deemed direct expenditure of the large burgh for the purpose of calculating de-rating losses. That does not appear to affect the question raised by the hon. Member as to the arrangement with the large burgh for a dock undertaking because that is outwith the present Amendment.

Mr. BENN: Could the case of Aberdeen which I have mentioned not be made to come within this Amendment? We did not have an opportunity of discussing this question under Clause 31, and I am asking, in as much as the two cases are in pari materia whether the Lord Advocate is aware that this Measure is going to deprive the City of Aberdeen of £3,000 a, year if we do not get this concession.

The LORD ADVOCATE: The present Amendment can only depend on the relations between the county authority and the large burgh, and it does not affect the large burgh with police of their own making arrangements by means of a local Act with the dock undertaking. I cannot see that the Amendment which we are discussing has anything to do with that question.

Mr. BENN: I still think, within the very narrow limits within which we are working, that the best thing is to raise it here. I do not know whether it is in order to ask the Chair whether the next Amendment is likely to be called?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has received the right answer from the Lord Advocate, and, his question having been answered, I must rule that he cannot discuss it further on this particular Amendment.

Mr. BENN: You will observe that large local interests are affected in this matter, and it is my duty to raise it at any opportunity that seems at all likely. I do not know whether it would be in order to ask whether the next Amendment is likely to be called, but, if it is, that
would relieve our minds and provide a further opportunity for the Lord Advocate to deal with the matter.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I should be very sorry indeed to prevent the hon. Member from having an opportunity of doing his duty. He was trying in the most gallant way to do so on this Amendment, but I am afraid I must terminate his efforts. The next Amendment, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown)—in page 59, line 28, at the end, to insert the words:
(3) In every case where any authority owning freight-transport lands and heritages within any rating area (in this paragraph called a 'freight-transport authority') provides under any local Act such public services as would otherwise be provided by a local authority and where, in recognition thereof, special provisions are made in a local Act with respect to a rate levied by such local authority under a local Act or under a public general Act there shall, in estimating and certifying the expenditure in respect of the standard year which would have fallen to be borne by rates levied in such rating area, be included in such expenditure, the approved expenditure disbursed by such local authority upon such part, if any, of the police force of such local authority as is provided by them under the powers of such local Act at the expense of such freight-transport authority, in so far as such special provisions have been made in recognition of the providing by such freight-transport authority of such a part of the public service of policing as would otherwise have been provided by such local authority, and notwithstanding that such expenditure is reimbursed to them by such freight-transport authority "—
is clearly out of order, as it would be outside the Financial Resolution.

Mr. BENN: Then it comes to this, that on the Amendment which the Government have moved it is impossible for the City of Aberdeen, and other cities in a like case, to get redress, while on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) it is impossible to act, because it is out of order. That seems to be the situation.

Mr. HARDIE: The words immediately preceding the point at which it is proposed to insert this Amendment are as follows:
the expenditure in respect of the standard year which would have fallen to be borne by rates levied in that area on the assumption that the expenditure on the transferred functions was expenditure by the transferee authority.
Does the expenditure referred to in this Amendment mean expenditure during the
Standard year, or does it mean expenditure during any one of the periods of three, four five and five years? When the Bill came out, there were to be three periods of five years each, but that has been changed to the four periods I have mentioned. I want to know whether the standard year mentioned here is the year preceding that spoken of in the Amendment.

The LORD ADVOCATE: If the hon. Member will turn to Clause 55 of the Bill, he will find, at page 50, that
Standard year' means the year beginning on the sixteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and twenty-eight.

Mr. HARDIE: Since the standard year is fixed, what is the meaning of having other periods coming after, if they are not to be used its forms of measurement? If the measurement of a sum is to be fixed at a certain date, and that is to be the date all through, why appoint other periods that are called measuring periods? When expenditure is incurred, is it to be measured by the expenditure of the preceding year? The answer is, "No," and I am told that if I turn to Clause 55 I shall find that it is a year already fixed. If the standard of measurement is already fixed at a certain period, why is it necessary to have further extensions? If expenditure is incurred under contract this year, say for a new dock or bridge, the work may not be finished for five or ten years, but the expenditure, I take it, would be measured by the fixed date in the Bill.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am afraid I cannot see how this comes under the Amendment before the Committee. As far as I can understand, the hon. Member is trying to discuss something connected with the standard year, but no question of the standard year arises on the Amendment.

Mr. HARDIE: If the preceding words of the Schedule were deleted, this other part which is being moved as an Amendment would have no connection with the Schedule.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That has nothing to do with it. It is not proposed to delete the preceding words at all. The hon. Member must confine himself to the words proposed to be inserted.

Mr. HARDIE: The words proposed to be inserted refer to expenditure which has to be measured by the standard year.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Yes, but the hon. Member cannot discuss the standard year. This Amendment is not concerned with that.

Mr. HARDIE: Yes, but how are we going to know that
expenditure on any function for the purpose of which a large burgh is included within a county, shall so far as such expenditure relates to the large burgh be assumed to be expenditure by the town council of the burgh?
Under what system of measurement is that to be related to the burgh, large or small, or to the county? If there is no definition of it here, the Bill is going to be still more muddled than it is. I am asking what the relationship is. If there be no relationship, why have the Government put down this Amendment? If I cannot relate this to the other parts that are being added to, it means that it cannot read in sequence, and, therefore, cannot have any relation to the preceding words in the Bill. I understand the Lord Advocate to say that that is silly. I quite agree that it is. Perhaps a statement could be made showing exactly what is meant by the addition.

The LORD ADVOCATE: The addition has nothing whatever to do with the extent of the revision at the end of the fixed grant period, either of the general Exchequer contribution or of the additional contribution. That is an entirely separate matter, and does riot come in here at all. This Amendment is merely to determine what shall be counted as expenditure by the burgh in calculating the losses on account of de-rating. I may add that the revision at the end of the various fixed grant periods is necessary, if you are going to take into account the relative proportions between the general Exchequer contribution and the amount of rate-borne and grant-borne expenditure, in the year preceding the fixed grant period in question. The purpose of the revision is to ensure that the guarantee given to the local authorities under Clause 38 and subsequent Clauses shall be made effective at the beginning of each fixed grant period, and that the revised basis may operate for the term of the fixed grant period following.

Mr. HARDIE: Are we to understand that, when expenditure is incurred which goes into two periods of fixed grant measurement, the period between the first two fixed points measures the expenditure on that part of the contract, and that between the next two fixed points measures the next part of the expenditure?

The LORD ADVOCATE: It is the year preceding.

Mr. HARDIE: Take the year preceding—

This DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The whole question of what year it is for is not in order at all. I have already called the hon. Member's attention to that fact.

Mr. HARDIE: We are trying to do our best to follow this. We may be a bit dull, but, on an Amendment which we first of all find cannot be related to what it is to be added to, is it fair to say that there is any possible means of arguing the question if you just stick to these words?

Mr. STEPHEN: Surely, this Amendment qualifies the method of reckoning the expenditure in respect of the standard year, which is the expenditure with which the Bill deals. I cannot see any meaning in it otherwise. Now we are putting in this part at the end in order to define something which previously was left somewhat vague. The Lord Advocate mentioned police expenditure as an illustration in connection with this matter, and he showed how, it might be reckoned as expenditure by the town council of the burgh or as expenditure under the county council. I understand that the purpose of the Amendment is to make clear where the reckoning of that expenditure is to come in, whether it is to go into the account of the one or of the other. If that is the meaning of the Amendment, surely it is a qualification of the expenditure in respect of a standard year, and my hon. Friend the Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie) who raised those points was, I think, seeking to safeguard the interests of the burgh against the county in respect of this accounting.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am obliged to the hon. Member for putting his views on the subject. No doubt it does qualify the expenditure for the
standard year, but that does not give a, right to the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie) and the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) to discuss the standard year. I rule that definitely out as a point that cannot be discussed on this Amendment.

Mr. STEPHEN: I was not proposing to discuss the expenditure of the standard year, and I do not think—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: May I ask the hon. Member whether he is still rising, as he did at first, on a point of Order, or does he propose to speak on this Amendment?

Mr. STEPHEN: I was proposing to speak on the Amendment. I am sorry if I did not make it clear to you that I intended to speak on the Amendment, because, I think, I can manage to introduce a certain amount of clarity as to the purpose of this Amendment. It is a matter of great importance with regard to reckonings in this way that the burgh should not lose as against the county by expenditure being reckoned as applying to the burgh and not to the county. I would like an assurance from the Lord Advocate that the burgh is not going to be put into a worse position than the county council.

The LORD ADVOCATE: The main purpose of this Amendment is to make sure that the burgh shall have credited to it the expenditure which the burgh is really making. It is to secure that the burgh shall have the benefit of what really is burgh expenditure although it is done through the channels of the county council in this particular instance.

Amendment agreed to.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, in page 60, line 18, at the end, to insert the words:
(2) The amounts aforesaid shall be estimated and certified as if the road grants had been payable in respect of the standard year at the rates at which they were payable immediately before the first day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty.
This Amendment is rendered necessary by reason of the announcement of the Ministry of Transport that the road grants were going to be increased, and it is in order to make sure that the local authorities shall get the full benefit of that increase, because that increase takes effect only towards the end of the standard
year. If we put in this Amendment to make sure that the rates of road grants shall be the rates existing at the last day, so to speak, of the standard year, it will ensure giving to the local authorities the benefit of the highest rates on which the road grants are payable. It is because of the recent increase—a very material increase—in the amount of road grants that this Amendment has been thought advisable.

Amendment agreed to.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to, move, in page 61, line 7, at the end, to, insert the words:
In ascertaining the rateable value of a county or large burgh for the purpose of this paragraph account shall not be taken of—

(a) any lands and heritages the occupier of winch is exempted from the payment of rates in respect thereof by virtue of a provision contained in a public-general Act (other than a provision only empowering the council to grant exemption; and
(b) such lands and heritages (not being lands and heritages occupied by the council of the county or burgh) as the Secretary of State may by order prescribe being lands and heritages the occupier of which is exempted from the payment of rates in respect thereof by virtue of any such provision as aforesaid contained in a local Act."
It is proposed to insert these words at the suggestion of the Edinburgh Corporation, to make clear that in cases where there are lands and heritages the occupiers of which are exempt from the payment of rates, they should not be taken into account in any de-rating provisions. Cases where exemption is under a public general Act are easily dealt with, but in the ease of local Acts, as usual, the matter will require to be dealt with specially by order of the Secretary of. State.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 61, line 8, leave out the word "number," and insert instead thereof the word "numbers."

In line 10, leave out the word "quinquennium," and insert instead thereof the words "fixed grant period."— [The Lord Advocate.]

Mr. SHINWELL: I beg to move, in page 61, line 10, to leave out the word "men," and to insert instead thereof the word "persons."
The purpose of my Amendment is to include women as one of the factors in calculating the amount of grant which is to be provided for the various authorities in respect of the unemployment factor. According to the Schedule, the only factor in this connection which is considered is the number of unemployed insured men. It must be obvious that that does not take cognisance of the total number of unemployed. It is the intention of the Government to move an Amendment later—after the word "men," insert the words "and of unemployed insured women"—which, to some extent, meets the point of view which I am putting before the Committee; but it does not go far enough. I am not certain whether I can discuss that Amendment at this stage. If I am precluded from discussing that Amendment, I should like the opportunity when the Lord Advocate moves it, of offering some observations in regard to it. For the moment I would point out that although we have accepted the principle of political equality, in that we have accorded to women beyond the age of 21 the right to vote and to express their opinion in respect to the administration of national affairs, we are in this provision excluding them from a most important consideration, namely, that of determining the needs of a particular district. That seems to me to be manifestly unsound, and if it were accepted by the Committee without protest, and it went through, it would mean that many districts would not receive the amount of grant, based on this particular factor, to which they would be entitled.
It may be argued by the right hon. Gentleman and those who agree with him on this matter, that the only unemployed person who should be taken into account should be the person who pays rates. I presume that is the kind of argument that would be adduced. Clearly, there may be something in that argument, but as against it I would point out that there are many unemployed women who maintain households, and are, therefore, ratepayers. So far as they are concerned, they ought to be included in this category. Even where women are not ratepayers in a direct sense, when they are unemployed they add to the general burden cast upon the community, if and when they require to make application
for relief, and when they become recipients of relief. Having regard to all these considerations, it appears to me that no case can be made out for excluding unemployed women from this particular provision. If we are to take the amount of unemployment in a district as the important factor in determining the needs of the district for the purposes of State grant, we are entitled to expect the Government to include all unemployment and not merely a part of it.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I should like to support the Amendment. The concession that has been given is not sufficient. The situation is very striking, and I should like to give a few figures in regard to it. In the country generally, there are 72.5 per cent. of insured persons who are male workers, and only 27.5 per cent. who are females. In Dundee, the corresponding figures are 52 per cent. and 48 per cent., respectively. An analysis of the textile and clothing trades shows that female labour is much in excess of male labour, the areas most affected being Dundee, Yorkshire, Lancashire, Nottinghamshire and Leicestershire. In textiles, the male percentage is 38.9 and the female percentage 61.1. In the clothing trade, the percentage is males, 34 per cent., and females, 66 per cent. In Dundee, the unemployed women are considerably in excess of the corresponding figures for seven other Scottish towns, namely, Aberdeen, Clydebank, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Greenock, Motherwell, Wishaw and Paisley. Whereas the unemployed women workers of Scotland numbered 22,979 on the 29th October, no fewer than 2,262, or 10 per cent., were in Dundee. With such figures applicable to various parts of the country, there is strong ground for taking the unemployed male and female workers together for the purposes of the scheme, seeing that the amount of unemployment is made a basis of relief. The argument has been made that this would, perhaps, involve giving a second reckoning in certain cases, but that point requires more elucidation than we have yet heard. A strong claim has certainly been made out for unemployment as a whole to be recognised by the Government. It may be said that we cannot hope to get anything better than has been given to England; nevertheless, it remains for us, if possible, to improve what is a very unsatisfactory position.

The LORD ADVOCATE: We do not seem to be much at issue on this question. The Amendment would render the expression, "unemployed insured persons," whereas with the Government Amendment the expression would be, "unemployed insured men and women." I do not know any persons other than men and women with whom we need to be concerned. Therefore, there is not much between us. I appreciate the importance of the principle which has been raised by both hon. Members, but I think their criticisms are based somewhat on a misunderstanding. The purpose of this weighting factor in the formula and the purpose of the factor is not for unemployment generally, but to give the weighting for abnormal unemployment. For that purpose, clearly, to take holusbolus everyone who is in receipt of Poor Law relief would not be doing justice to districts which are suffering from abnormal as distinct from normal unemployment. It may be said that while we are taking the insured unemployed, we are neglecting domestic service and agricultural employment. The answer to that argument is, that neither in domestic service nor in agricultural employment is there any abnormal unemployment, so far as I know. Therefore, no injustice is done by excluding it. It is very important to bear in mind that we do not limit the class taken to unemployed insured persons who are drawing benefit. We include in this calculation all the unemployed insured persons, whether they are drawing benefit or not. It is very important to bear that fact in mind. To take as an illustration, the unemployed insured man who loses his benefit or is held not to be entitled to benefit, but comes in under Poor. Law relief, will come on the definition, although he is not actually drawing benefit. It is very important to remember that.
I would like the Committee to follow our reasons for using this loading factor. It is for the purpose of giving effect to abnormal unemployment in particular districts. We are satisfied that the ideal test would be the number of unemployed with dependants, whether male or female. But if you follow too strictly that line, and take only the unemployed insured persons who have dependants, that is, the unemployed insured breadwinners, whether male or female, you
would do a great injustice to towns, especially to the textile towns such as Bradford, where there is a large amount of female unemployment of an abnormal nature. We decided that it would be much fairer to take the total unemployed insured men, whether they were actually in receipt of benefit or not, and add a percentage for women. We are proposing to add 10 per cent., and, in fact, that addition in the amount of weighting will more than cover any additions which would have been given by including what I will call female breadwinners. In actual proof it works out much fairer, and it gives a very fair result as to the respective proportion of abnormal unemployment where the female element comes in. For that reason, not because it is in the English Bill, but on its merits, we submit to the Committee that our proposals are fair. I hope the hon. Member will not press the Amendment; the proposal in the Government Amendment covers men and women.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I can quite understand that every abnormality upsets a formula. If you set up a rule you cannot apply it to abnormal districts. In the district which I represent we certainly have an abnormal situation, as practically half the employed persons are women. Obviously, when you get a situation like that it is important in a Measure of this kind that a city with such abnormal employment should not suffer financially. The Lord Advocate in reply to this discussion made no mention as to how the formula will operate in an area like Dundee, where half the entire working population are women.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I can tell the hon. Member now. In fact, Dundee is an area in which the addition of the 10 per cent. on account of women makes the greatest addition. The present percentage is 13.7, but being increased by 1.4 it goes up to 15.1.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I speak for myself in this matter, but I must say that I am out of my depth and I expect most hon. Members are in the same position. I am not much worried as to whether this formula will or will not give us the exact 20s. in the which has been promised, because a future Chancellor of
the Exchequer will be in a position to correct the errors and redress the evils it may impose. A Socialist Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to level up districts which have suffered severe losses as a result of the operation of this Bill. It is perfectly obvious that there are some districts, which because of the abnormal amount of unemployment, cannot tell where they will stand. I know two or three city treasurers who have informed me that they are at their wits end to know where they will stand financially at the end of the first period. Extraordinary unemployment will upset this formula. An extraordinary amount of unemployment amongst women will upset it. All sorts of things will upset it. All that the Lord Advocate can do on this Amendment is to give us an assurance that the statisticians upon whom he relies may advise him that an abnormal city like Dundee need not possibly fear financial ruin at the end of six months.

Mr. STEPHEN: I desire to support the Amendment. I was not impressed very much by the Lord Advocate's reply. He takes the ground that the Govern-merit's Amendment is better, and that you will have all unemployed insured persons within the orbit of the Clause. Is that really the case? Under the Employment Insurance Act you have a class from 16 years to 18 years of age, and also a class from 18 years to 21 years. I should like to know whether the Government's Amendment, if it is carried, will include these two classes. The Lord Advocate says that this has really to do with districts in which there is abnormal unemployment and that it is an attempt to make provision to provide relief for those districts. Abnormal unemployment may reflect itself in an abnormal number of young people unemployed, or an abnormal number of men or women unemployd, or an abnormal combination of young people and men unemployed; or an abnormal combination of young people and women unemployed; or there may be an abnormal condition in which practically every one of the different sections is represented. I believe it is necessary that that should be taken into account.
I want to be clear as to the position. Is provision to be made for the district
in which there may be a great many young people unemployed? In Glasgow there are a great many people under 21 years of age who are unemployed. Under this Bill power is taken to make claims upon persons for maintenance of relatives in the case of hospital treatment. That fact shows how important it is to have the matter cleared. If a householder is in hospital obtaining treatment the members of his family may be called upon to make these payments. Consequently they have to take account of what provision is being made with regard to rating proposals. What should be considered is the number of people in the household. While it may be true that the householder pays the rates, every member of the household who is in employment contributes towards that payment, because he contributes so much to the household maintenance. That brings me back to the question of how we are to make provision for the districts in which there is abnormal unemployment. The fair basis for a formula would take count of the whole number of unemployed people in a district. I am not altogether in agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) that if the formula is wrong, this Government or another Government can afterwards correct it and put in different factors, and that everything will be all right. I think that any other Government will sweep away this formula altogether.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It would not be in order for the hon. Member to proceed with that argument any further.

Mr. BUCHANAN: On a point of Order. Is it customary, before an hon. Member develops his argument, for the Chair to interrupt him?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Mr. Stephen.

Mr. STEPHEN: I am sorry I could not finish my sentence. There has been so much reference already to the formula, that I wanted to say that the Amendment concerns one of its factors, the weighting factor of unemployment. If the Government do not accept the Amendment and include persons instead of unemployed insured men and women, the formula will be even more unworkable than would otherwise be the case. I think I have row put the case in a way to which the Deputy-Chairman will not
take exception. It has been stated that in taking the number of unemployed insured men and women there would be included not only those who are receiving benefit but those who are not. I wonder how it is going to be done. It is obvious that there are many people who have ceased to draw unemployment benefit and have ceased to register at the Exchanges. It is very common knowledge that, when the total figure for unemployment is about 1,500,000, the real number is probably nearer 2,000,000, because so many of those who have ceased to draw benefit throughout a long period of unemployment have ceased to register at the Exchanges at all. Does the Lord Advocate say that the number will include those who are not drawing benefits as well as those who are? Does he include those who are over 65 years of age and are unemployed? Will he include those who have ceased to be registered?
The other day, in answer to a question, the Minister of Labour said that he could not distinguish, from those registered at the exchanges, the number drawing benefit and the number not drawing benefit. It is necessary, therefore, that we should get more definite information. To take the proportion of women at 10 per cent. is absurd. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, the Lord Advocate said that, Dundee was one of the cases provided for, and he gave figures which showed that there was an alteration from 13.4 to 15.8, and added, in effect, "This is one of the cases in which there is the necessary correction." I submit that on the basis of Dundee the figure for other parts of the Bell should be somewhere in the neighbourhood of 25 instead of 15 if you are to have a proper correcting factor. I am aware that an attempt was made to get a formula which would have a scientific appearance, which would seem to take into account the number of unemployed people in a district and which would give the impression of making provision for the difficult circumstances in which certain districts are at present placed. But the fact that only certain classes of unemployed are included shows how irrational is this proposal. It is not a scientific formula at all.
This algebraic formula, if examined, reveals itself to be a pseudo-scientific attempt to deal with the matter in such a way as to bewilder the public. If a case can be made out for bringing in a weighting figure for unemployment, obviously it is not sufficient to include only unemployed insured men. It ought to include the whole body of unemployed who constitute a burden upon the district. To take only one section of this army of unemployed people, to base a figure on that and then to correct it for Scotland in the light of something which has occurred in Bradford shows how unscientifically the Government are dealing with the matter. Unless the Lord Advocate tells me that the various classes of people which I have already mentioned are also going to be covered by this proposal, I hope the Amendment will be pressed to a Division.

Mr. HARDIE: The word of art "abnormality" has been introduced by the Lord Advocate and I wish to put a case to him on that, point. We know that in industrial areas there are huge works where the driving power occasionally breaks down. In a case of that kind two or three weeks may be required to make the necessary repairs, and, in the meantime, perhaps as many as 2,000 men will be thrown out of employment. Is that a normal or an abnormal condition? Will the Lord Advocate explain how such a sudden influx of thousands of unemployed people is to be dealt with under the rules for determining weighted population. The Lord Advocate said it only applied where there was abnormal unemployment.

The LORD ADVOCATE indicated dissent.

Mr. HARDIE: Then I must have misunderstood him, but I think the Bill itself elsewhere speaks of this method being only for finding abnormal unemployment. But it is quite easy to see that where there is a breakdown of the kind which I have described, there is no addition to the number of miles of road in a district, and there is no increase in the number of children under five, and since these are two of the factors to be taken into account, will the Lord Advocate explain what is the relation between these various factors and what is the exact sense in which he uses the word
"abnormality"? In my constituency breakdowns of this kind often occurred and a large works may be shut down. Whether it is normal or abnormal, how are you going to measure the unemployment in a case like that, unless by the ordinary means of the Employment Exchange. Further, to say that the fixing of the number of women unemployed has to be consequential on the number of men unemployed, is quite unfair. Why should there be any differentiation between the sexes in determining this matter of unemployment? All this procedure, I suggest, is simply trying to hide the simple facts in a formula.
The fact is that there are unemployed people registered in the Employment Exchange. You do not require any formula, or anything about miles of road, or the number of children under five, or any of that kind of thing in order to find out that there are unemployed people requiring succour. This question has not been faced by anyone on the Government Front Bench up to the present. No one will say why the Government will not take the exact figures, as they are to be found in the Employment Exchanges. The place to find the number of unemployed is in the Exchange. We are told here that the idea of weighting the population is in order to ascertain a certain number under the terms of the Schedule and then it is said:
there shall be ascertained the percentage represented by the proportion which that number bears to the average estimated population of the county or burgh, etc.

But the fact of 2,000 men being thrown out of work suddenly by a stoppage of machinery or something of that kind does not add to the population, or the road mileage, or the number of children. Why do the Government fear to face the question? It is all very well to make it appear that everybody is ignorant except those who drew up the formula. This is a political dodge to make it appear that those who criticise the Government's proposals have not brains to understand the formula. But some of us have practical experience, and if those responsible for the formula had done some work with their hands, they might have a greater relation to realities with their heads. It did not require an algebraic equation to find out how much the brewers should get. There was no question of sex or age or percentage of population in that case. If you were a brewer you got your share of £400,000, and it was just the same with the landlords. In one case the Lord Advocate refers to "abnormality," and in the next case we are told about miles of road and numbers of children and all that kind of thing. What is the meaning of all this unless it is to try to mystify us? I challenge the Front Bench. If they understand this thing, and if it is so clear to them, let them make it equally clear, so that the rest of the Committee can understand it.

Question put, "That the word 'men' stand part of the Schedule."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 165; Noes, 78.

Division No. 232.]
AYES.
[9.26 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
England, Colonel A.


Albery, Irving James
Buckingham, Sir H.
Erskine, James Malcolm Montelth


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Burman, J. B.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Campbell, E. T.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Cassels, J. D.
Ford, Sir P. J.


Apsley, Lord
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Chapman, Sir S.
Forrest, W.


Atholl, Duchess of
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Foster, Sir Harry s.


Atkinson, C.
Christie, J. A.
Gates, Percy


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Clayton, G. C.
Goff, Sir Park


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Gower, Sir Robert


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)


Berry, Sir George
Coltox, Major William Phillips
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter


Betterton, Henry B.
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Bevan, S. J.
Cooper, A. Dull
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Blundell, F. N.
Cope, Major Sir William
Hacking, Douglas H.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Couper, J. B.
Hamilton, Sir George


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Courtauld, Major J. 8.
Hammersley, S. S.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Braithwalte, Major A. N.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Harrison, G J. C


Brass, Captain W.
Davies, Maj. Geo.F.(Somerset,Yeovil)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Davies. Dr. Vernon
Haslam, Henry C.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Henderson, Capt.R.R. (Oxf'd, Henley)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Ellis, R. G.
Henderson, Lieut. Col. Sir Vivian


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur p.
Meyer, Sir Frank
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Shepperson, E. W.


Herbert, S. (York. N.R.,Scar. & Wh'by)
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ.,Belf'st.)


Hills, Major John Waller
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Skeiton, A. N.


Hilton, Cecil
Moore, Lieut..Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Moreing, Captain A. H.
Storry-Deans, R.


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Murchison, Sir Kenneth
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney,N.)
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Nelson, Sir Frank
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Neville, sir Reginald J.
Templeton, W. P.


Iveagh, Countess of
Nuttall, Ellis
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Oakley, T.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Ward. Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Knox, Sir Alfred
Perkins, Colonel E, K.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W


Lamb, J. Q.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstapic)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Loder, J. de V.
Pilcher, G.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Long, Major Eric
Power, Sir John Cecil
Watts, Sir Thomas


Lougher, Lewis
Price, Major C. W. M.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vera
Ralne, Sir Walter
Wells, S. R.


Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)
White, Lieut. Col. Sir G Dairymple


MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


MacIntyre, Ian
Ruggles-Brisc, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


McLean, Major A.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Withers, John James


Macquisten, F. A.
Rye, F. G.
Womersley, W. J.


MacRobert, Alexander M.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)



Margesson, Captain D.
Sanderson, Sir Frank
TELLERS FOB THE AYES.—


Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Savery, S. S.
Mr. F. C. Thomson and Major The




Marquess of Titchfield.


NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hayday, Arthur
Potts, John S.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hayes, John Henry
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Ritson, J.


Batey, Joseph
Hirst, G. H.
Scrymgeour, E.


Bellamy, A.
Hollins, A.
Sexton, James


Benn, Wedgwood
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Shield. G. W.


Broad, F A
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Shinwell, E.


Bromfield, William
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Buchanan, G.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Charleton, H. C.
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, Rennle (Penlstone)


Cluse, W. S.
Kennedy, T.
Snell, Harry


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kirkwood. D
Stephen, Campbell


Comnton, Joseph
Lawrence, Susan
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Cove, W. G.
Lawson, John James
Strauss, E. A.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Longbottom, A. W.
Sutton, J. E.


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Lowth, T.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Dennison, R.
Lunn, William
Tinker, John Joseph


Duncan, C.
Mackinder, W.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
MacLaren, Andrew
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Gillett George M.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Guvan)
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Griffith, F. Kingsley
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Williams. T. (York, Don Valley)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Grundy, T. W.
Montague, Frederick
Windsor, Walter


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Oliver, George Harold



Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Owen, Major G.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hardle, George D.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. Whiteley.

Amendments made:

In page 61, line 10, after the word "men," insert the words:
and of unemployed insured women.

In line 13, leave out the words "that number," and insert instead thereof the words:
the number of unemployed insured men increased by ten per cent, of the number of unemployed insured women."—[The Lord Advocate.]

The CHAIRMAN: The Amendments in the name of the hon. and gallant
Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) to insert words at the end of line 24, and to leave out paragraphs (a) and (b), go together.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I beg to move, in page 61, line 24, at the end, to insert the words:
by a number equal to the number of miles of road in the appropriate year multiplied by fifty.
These Amendments are of great importance to counties in Scotland with a small population. Under the provisions of the
Bill, where the population of a county is greater than 100 persons to the mile of road, the loading factor is expressed as the ratio of 50 to the number of persons per mile of roads. Where the population is less than 100 to the mile of roads then the curve is contracted, and the population, as increased by the children and the rateable value factors, is raised by the percentage deficiency below 200. Those counties for which I speak, and especially the Highland counties of Scotland—but it applies also to a very large number of Lowland and other sparsely populated counties in Scotland—are bearing at the present time an immense burden of rates, and the life is being crushed out of the countryside. The burden has risen very steeply indeed since the War, and in many respects we have been unable to make the same advances in health matters and with regard to the reconditioning of our roads as has been made by the counties which are more fortunately situated. I may mention, for example, that the County of Sutherland has found itself unable to work the Housing of Rural Workers Act, and in the County of Caithness we have no child welfare or maternity services. There is one in the burgh of Wick but none in the county as a whole.
We have been absolutely unable, owing to this great burden of rates, to obtain the same level of public services as other and more fortunate counties have obtained. Even the roads are very far behind the standard of other counties. That is to some extent true of our main roads, but it is also true of our by-roads, which actually serve the agricultural population, roads which ought to be taken over by the county, but which the county at the present time simply cannot afford to take over, roads which are really needed by the native people of the county in order to get about their ordinary avocations. There are other factors in the formula, but the two fundamental factors are the number of children under five years of age per 1,000 of the population and the rateable value factor. The number of children in the Highland counties under five years of age per 1,000 of the population is, unhappily, very small, for the reason that owing to the depopulation of the Highlands, and owing to the
fact that the young men and women cannot get holdings and find places for themselves, cannot fit themselves into the economic life of their county, there is a diminishing number of children. Young men have to go abroad. They have to emigrate or go into the big cities before they get married; and in all our schools there is at the present time a diminishing population. Therefore, we are unable to obtain the value which we ought to obtain from that particular factor.
Then there is the factor of the rateable value per head of the population. Our rateable value per head is low enough, and, therefore, we do well under that factor. If you take these two factors alone, the fact that the second is more favourable to us than the first does not quite counterbalance the unfavourableness of the first, and, therefore, we do rather worse than the average under those two fundamental factors affecting the distribution of the grants among the counties of Scotland. When we come to the unemployment factor, that does not help, because, although there is a good deal of unemployment and a great deal of under-employment and distress, it is among people who are not insured, and does not figure on the lists of the Employment Exchanges, and, therefore, we do not get very much benefit under the unemployment factor. But this factor does help other counties and other parts of Scotland substantially. For example, it helps, and rightly helps, those places that we call black spots, where there is a great deal of unemployment, and I do not grudge it them, but nobody in their senses would demand that where there is a particular amount of unemployment, because the unemployment is very high you should cut down the unemployment factor, contract the curve, and give less to the black spots where the unemployment is worst, yet that is just what this factor does as regards the roads. Where the population is most sparse, where they have the least resources, where they are most scattered over a large area, and where all kinds of services are, therefore, correspondingly expensive, there, where they feel the pinch most, the curve is contracted and this factor in the formula has less value.
I have some reason to guess what the reply of the Lord Advocate is going to be. It will be the reply that has been
given to me before. He will say, "Yes, but in counties like yours you get an enormous relief—56d. per head." But let us examine that a little further. It is not the case that we shall get 56d. a head. We shall get nothing like it. I have heard it said by prominent Tory speakers in my constituency that we shall get 4s. 8d. in the £ reduction in rates, but I know that that is a statement which the Lord Advocate would not make. He will say that we get a reduction of 56d. per head, but that is not true. I will rot say it is a fraud, but it is certainly a delusion. You have to make some very considerable deductions. There is, first of ail, the deduction of the Highland grant to which my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton) drew attention last week.

The LORD ADVOCATE: Is that the £10,000 in respect of which you are going to get the £80,000?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: The Lord Advocate interrupts, and it shows that he has not followed my argument.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I asked a, question.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: The Lord Advocate followed my argument in a general sense, but interrupted in order to get a more particular explanation.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I asked: Is that the £10,i100 in respect of which you are going to get the £80,000?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: The fallacy lies in the words "in respect of which." It is not true that we are getting anything in respect of losing the Highland grant at all, but in respect of the formula, on the same basis as all other counties are getting their money. No other county is losing anything before it gets its block grant, but we are to lose £10,000 a year, which we have had ever since 1889, and that is grossly unfair to the Highland counties. I am very glad to have managed at last to explain it to the Lord Advocate, and to show that it is in the use of those words "in respect of which" that he has fallen into the error. Whether it be fair or not that we should lose that £10,000, the only point that is relevant to this argument is the fact that we do lose it, and that is what cannot be denied. Therefore, if you are to
estimate what our gain is, you have first of all to deduct the losses. I am very glad that I have managed to carry the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health with me on this point. We all know his agile brain, and I am glad that he, at any rate, is able to grasp this point.
At the present time, there is, on the one hand, a gain of 56d. On the other hand, there is the loss of the Highland grant, which in the case of Sutherland amounts to 11d. per head and in the case of Caithness to 10d.; and then there will be the cost of the travelling allowances, which in those two counties will be enormous. People will have to travel 40 miles or more to attend the meetings of the county authority, and the cost of that is going to amount to £500 in the case of Caithness and £400 in the case of Sutherland. That is an official estimate, but I believe it is an under-estimate, but even if we accept that low figure it will mean that we must deduct from the gain 5d. in the case of Sutherland and 2½d in Caithness. Then, I understand, broken time is to be paid for, which will mean another deduction of 2d. in the case of Sutherland and of 1d. in Caithness.
Then there is the question of commitments into which these counties have entered, expenditure on which does not come into the standard year and, therefore, will not rank for the block grant. In the case of Sutherland there are sonic housing undertakings in that condition. Both counties have been concentrating lately on trying to get their main roads into good order and neglecting the side roads, and there will be a good deal of expenditure on the side roads in the coming years which will not rank in the block grant and will not earn such a high grant from the Ministry of Transport as does expenditure on the main roads. There is also the fact that there are no maternity and welfare services in those counties. Caithness, too, has incurred commitments amounting to over £5,000 under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, none of which ranks for calculation in the block grant.

The LORD ADVOCATE: Housing does not come into the calculation at all.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Oh. yes, indeed it does. [Interruption.] Rather, I should say, that is my point, that it does not
come into the calculation at all. The expenditure they have incurred will not enter into the calculations for the block grant, and it will have to be paid for out of the rates, although the rateable value in the county of Caithness has been so reduced that the yield of 1d. rate is no more than £153. How much of this benefit will remain to the counties of Caithness and Sutherland? On a conservative estimate, according to these calculations, it is reduced by 23d. from 56d. leaving 33d., which is under 3s.; and if this expenditure on housing, and this other expenditure, has to be met, it will be reduced to vanishing point, and then we shall get the rates going up steeply, seeing that a penny rate yields only £153. After making allowance for the block grant, it would take more than 3d. in the pound to raise even £500.
That is the position from which we demand to be rescued. It is not exceptional treatment for which we ask, but merely the elimination of a provision which discriminates unfavourably and unfairly against these sparsely-populated counties with their heavy burdens. I have here figures which have been worked out—not by me, because I do not claim to be a great mathematician—but by one of the greatest mathematicians in this country. Let me quote them to the Committee to illustrate my point. Where the population in a county is 100 to the mile or over, the additional weighting of the population is 50, but where it is under 100 to the mile then the curve is contracted. Moray gets only 49.5, Argyll gets only 38.5, Nairn 38, Kircudbright 36, Berwick 35.5, Inverness 31 and Sutherland 23. If this Amendment which I am proposing is accepted, then the weighting for all counties will be exactly the same. Why have not the Government adopted this plan before? This is how the Financial Memorandum explains it. It is proposed there that above the level of 100 persons per mile, the loading factor should be expressed as the ratio of 50 to the number of persons per mile of road. Then it goes on to say:
Were this basis applied to counties with very sparse population the loading would reach an excessive figure.
But it does not. I have the figures here, and the loading does not in any single case reach an excessive figure, in the case of Sutherland, the gain would be
a matter of £2,270, that is the second highest figure. That is no more than this county, with its sparse population and its low valuation, requires in order to obtain for itself the services which are common in the other counties. The only higher figure is that for Inverness, which is £5,130. Therefore I say that it is not the truth, as stated in the formula, that if this basis were applied to counties with very sparse population the loading would reach an excessive figure.
It may be asked what this will cost. It will cost only 1d. per head of the population in the other counties, and at that cost we could give these sparsely populated counties the full value of this factor, and with it some real hope of securing under this Bill an opportunity of placing themselves on a sound foundation. There are only 12 counties which get the full benefit of tins formula, and there are 19 counties which do not—Moray, Banff, Caithness, Peebles, Kinross, Dumfries, Aberdeen, Dumbarton, Ross and Cromarty, Roxburgh, Perth, Wig-town, Kincardine, Argyle, Nairn, Kircudbright, Berwick, Inverness and Sutherland. All these counties get substantially worse treatment than they are entitled to and would get if this fact of population were fairly applied on the same basis to all the counties of Scotland. I might have claimed with justice that in calculating the mileage of roads in the counties, we should not merely take into account the county roads, hut the byroads and the parish roads. In the Highland counties, the county councils would be willing to take over some of these roads, but they simply cannot afford it, because of the burden of the roads at the present time. I do not, however, claim that to-night. I merely claim this rectification of the formula as an act of justice to counties with a low valuation and sparse population.
We all very much regret the absence of the Secretary of State for Scotland, and wish him a complete recovery from his illness and an early return to the House, but I have a special reason for regretting his absence, because I am sure that if he could have been here to listen to these arguments, and those which my hon. Friends will bring forward, he would have acceded to the demand which we make. I know that it is embarrassing to the Lord Advocate to ask him to grant a demand like this at a moment's
notice. I say, therefore, that if he will indicate that this matter will be considered favourably and sympathetically between now and the Report stage, I will not press my Amendment. I attach real importance to it, and if the Government do not accept it, an act of gross injustice will be done to the Highland counties, and I am convinced that they will find the Government scheme a delusion.

10.0.p.m.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I should have expected that, if the hon. Baronet had really desired to convince the Committee, he would not only have tried to convince them that the Government method was wrong, but have spent a little time in showing the reasons for the particular method selected by the Amendment, I still remain in complete ignorance of what justification there is for the Amendment, and I propose to defend the Government position. The Amendment, in my view, proceeds on a misapprehension as to the purpose of the factors in the formula. There are three main factors of the formula to begin with. There is population, a necessary factor; there is the question of the number of children under five, which is taken as a test to provide the best index of the poverty and needs of a district for local government services; and the third main factor is the question of rateable value, and the reason for taking that into account is obvious. Then there are two minor or more local tests: first, the unemployment factor, which is an important one; and second, the factor which has more relevance to the question of the county districts with which we are now concerned, namely, the density factor. The natural test to take; if we wanted density, would be the average number of persons per square mile, but it is obvious that that would not give a very true picture because in the Highlands—although possibly not Caithness-shire—there are large tracts of uninhabited country among the hills and elsewhere which would be included in an average of persons per square mile. The next suggestion, and the one which the Government have adopted, is to combine the length of highways in the country with the number of population. We consider that that gives a very fair test of sparsity or density of population.
The Amendment, as far as I heard it—and it has not really been explained—suggests that the purpose of this weighting factor is to give a contribution towards road expenditure, because the only thing at which it looks is the number of miles of road.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I really must interrupt, for the right hon. Gentleman has misinterpreted what I said.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I am trying to interpret what the hon. Baronet did not say.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I went through all the factors, and I made it quite clear that this was not aimed to help the roads, but was the only factor which substantially helped populations like those in the Highland counties, where the population is so sparse and scattered.

The LORD ADVOCATE: This Amendment proceeds on the length of roads and has nothing to do with population at all The only thing that it does is to take the mileage of roads and multiply it by 50 irrespective of the population. What has that to do with population? The hon. Baronet did not favour us with any explanation, and it was on what he said and what he failed to say that I ventured to make that rather daring inference from the terms of the Amendment. Whether it be his intention or not, it takes mileage into account whether the population is dense or not. That is quite an indefensible position. It is true that I might be content with that answer, but I am not going to be, and I hope to convince the Committee that the Government proposal is a fair one. We want to get at some test which would help the difficulties which the sparse population has from the fact that it is not concentrated and cannot easily get services or provide services in the area because of the long distances to go, and probably other elements. The main element there may be, relatively to the population, an unreasonable length of road. We took the view that the number of persons per mile of road was a very fair test, and we came to the conclusion, on working out a series of tests, that the first ground of this formula, namely, where the number of persons per mile of road was under a hundred to express it as a fraction—namely, the difference between the number of persons
per mile of road and 200. When we come to populations which were not so sparse, but had over 100, then, if we continue that same ratio in weighting, this factor would disappear and you would get no weighting 200 persons per mile of road. The fraction would then be 200/200. We thought that was not quite fair. What we did was to flatten the curve in that direction and not in the other. We flattened it when you get over 100, and not under 100. We flattened it so that it should not disappear when you get to 200 persons per mile of road. The Committee will bear in mind that this is not a question of an absolute grant. It is a question of a clear allocation as between different areas with a certain amount of weighting corresponding to their relative density or sparseness. With regard to the £10,000 to which the hon. Baronet has referred, that has been taken into account as a discontinued grant and 100 per cent. is allowed for it. What possible grievance there can be I cannot see.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: The point is that if you say the benefit the people are getting by the scheme of the Government is so much they think that is the net benefit, whereas the truth is that the grant has been swallowed in the new block grant.

The LORD ADVOCATE: That is not so at all. The gain that is expressed in these figures is the net gain, when you have taken into account the rates that are now asked and the grants that are now asked. In the case of the county of Caithness, we are taking into account not only the rates but the grants that are now lost, and amongst them is this very £10,000.

Sir R. HAMILTON: May I go back to the actual formula. I presume it was the intention of the Government to see that there was extra weighting where the population was sparse, but when we come to work it out we cannot get away from the fact that, when you get under 100 per mile, there is far less weighting than when you get to 300 and 400. I have a graph which has been worked out by a mathematician. When you have 100, 200, 400, 600, up to 1,000 persons per mile, the weighting is exactly the same—50—but when you get under 100 and get down to 50, the weighting is 37. When you have
20 per mile it drops to 18. If it was the intention of the Government to make up for the sparseness of the population, surely the graph would have been drawn in such a way that at least those counties which have a population of under 100 per mile of road should be not less well off than those that have a bigger population per mile. The number of children and the unemployment do not affect the matter. The important question is the density or sparseness of the population. I challenge the Lord Advocate to deny that, where you get a sparsely populated county, the weighting for density of population per mile of road is less than in a more thickly populated county.

The LORD ADVOCATE: This is a matter of words. What I say without fear of contradiction is that in a district where the population is 40 per mile of road, the relief is greater than where the population is 60 or 120 to the mile of road.

Sir R. HAMILTON: That is not so according to the weighting.

The LORD ADVOCATE: That is the very point put, I suspect, by the same expert to our expert at the Treasury.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Who was that expert?

The LORD ADVOCATE: The expert of the hon. Member for Inverness-shire (Sir M. Macdonald).

Sir R. HAMILTON: Will the Lord Advocate admit that this figure is correct, that where you have n per mile the weighting is 37?

The LORD ADVOCATE: That was suggested to me on behalf of the hon. Member for Inverness-shire and we requested that he should send his expert to see our expert at the Treasury. He saw him, and I am informed that, when he left, he expressed himself satisfied that the Treasury was right and he was wrong.

Sir R. HAMILTON: It was the hon. Member himself who drafted the Amendment. He is not here to-night but he requested that it should be moved. I cannot put it higher and I leave it at that. I should like to be corrected whether it is not a fact that, on this formula, with a population of 50 per mile
of road you get 37. [An HON. MEMBER: "75."] That is 75 per cent. You are mixing up the percentages.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: The Lord Advocate took the hon. Baronet the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) rather to task for taking the length of road, but it was he himself who began it. You get it in the formula in the financial memorandum. This length of road is the only substantial thing we get in the lowland parts of the country. And it is no good jeering at the cost. I know a district where a penny rate only yields £160, and the rates are four shillings. Of course we want all the relief of rates we can possibly get and we are justified in asking for it. The financial memorandum says:
It is proposed, therefore, that above the level of 100 persons per mile of road, the loading factor should be expressed as the ratio of 50 to the number of persons per mile of road. Thus, with a population per mile of road of 400, the loading would be 50/400=⅛=12½per cent. Were this basis applied to counties with very sparse population the loading would reach an excessive figure.
What is 1,000 per cent.? One shilling is more than 1,000 per cent. of a penny and some of our districts are so sparsely populated that 1,000 per cent. is not too much if you are going to get any benefit. With all due respect, to what the Lord Advocate has said, may I point out that I have worked out some figures, and I find that where there is 400 of population it makes 12½ per cent., 200 55 per cent., and 100 50 per cent. When you get down to 50, it is 75 per cent. and at 20 it is 90 per cent. With regard to what the Lord Advocate has said about the statement of the hon. Member for Inverness (Sir M. Macdonald), all I can say is that the expert at the Treasury is defective in his mathematics; he is also defective in his hearing, and his figures do not bear the stamp of genuineness on the face of them. This subject is not one for discussion in an assembly like this where hon. Members state what the experts have said. I would like to ask the Lord Advocate to refer the question to mathematicians in order to see if the facts are not as we state, because the figures treat us very unfairly. On this question I do not mind what the Lord Advocate says because he has admitted that he is not a mathematician and I affirm that I am one.

Mr. HARDIE: To-night I have already dealt with another part of what is called the formula, but I never get any reply to questions in this connection. It is agreed that the number less than that which gives 200, when the number of miles of road is the basis, plus the other factors, shall be taken, but, when it suits the Government, it is made up to 200. Where there is a sparsity of population such that there are fewer than 200 people per mile of road, why do not the Government take the 200 as the basis of calculation? The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health laughs at that, but, if he had been born across the Border, he would have known what logic was, and those who do not know that are always pleased to pose as learned on something that they do not themselves understand. That is the sort of attitude of mind that there is in this type of thing that they are trying to impose upon the public.
The factor, so far as weighting population is concerned in relation to roads, means that anything below 200 represents sparsity, but anything above 200 represents density, but, when your datum line runs through and bisects at the point of 100, you then say that you must bring in a differential factor, and that differential factor is said to be represented by the diversified current which is the kind of current that touches nowhere but leads everywhere, and is such a happy find for the politician. The Front Government Bench have had no time to make even a single effort to answer these questions. When you put 50 over any number above 200, what do you do? You are supposed to find the percentage, but that percentage may have no relation at all to the unemployed in that area. I know of a district where 700 men were put out of work yesterday through a breakdown of machinery, and there are more than 400 people to the mile in that area. The factor of which I am speaking is the one that is supposed to deal with an abnormal occurrence of that kind. The moment you have such an accumulation of unemployed is that normal or abnormal?

The CHAIRMAN: This Amendment seeks to insert the words:
by a number equal to the number of miles of road in the appropriate year multiplied by fifty.
the object being that the population shall be increased in a certain proportion according to the number of miles of road. I do not see that the unemployment factor comes in.

Mr. HARDIE: If the roads are being taken as a basis of calculation, this is connected with the density factor, and, since we are dealing with the density factor, we must deal with the basis of that factor.

The CHAIRMAN: In a matter of this simplicity, I will give the hon. Member the benefit of the doubt.

Mr. HARDIE: Here you have a number of unemployed in an area already measured by the number of miles of road without increasing the number of the population. If 2,000 people are thrown out of work to-night by a mill breaking down, that has got to be faced in that area, and the density factor takes no account of that possibility, which may happen at any time. What is the use of the people opposite,

whether they call themselves politicians or not, trying to fool other people by asserting that we do not need Employment Exchanges to deal with the unemployed, or a census to determine the number of children. It is said that we do not need all these things. We are paying very handsomely for the upkeep of institutions in order that accurate information can be obtained. If this country had been in such a chaotic state that we could not get to know the figures in regard to the number of unemployed, the number of children and the rateable value per head, there might have been some sense in saying that we must find a method whereby all this information could he produced. I would like the Lord Advocate to be good enough to answer one or two of these questions, especially the one with regard to a certain influx of unemployed claims in a community with an increasing or decreasing population.

Question put, "That those words he there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 89; Noes, 187.

Division No. 233.]
AYES.
[10.29 p.m.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hayday, Arthur
Potts, John S.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hayes, John Henry
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Ammon, Charles George
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Riley, Ben


Barnes, A.
Hirst, G. H.
Ritson, J.


Batey, Joseph
Hollins, A.
Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall,St.Ives)


Bellamy, A.
Hore-Bellsha, Leslie
Scrymgeour, E.


Benn, Wedgwood
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Scurr, John


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Sexton, James


Broad, F. A
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Bromfield, William
Kelly, W. T.
Shield, G. W.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Kennedy, T.
Shinwell, E.


Buchanan, G.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Charleton, H. C.
Kirkwood, D.
Smith. Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Cluse, W. S.
Lansbury, George
Smith, Rennie (Penlstone)


Compton, Joseph
Lawrence, Susan
Snell, Harry


Cove, W G.
Lawson, John James
Stephen, Campbell


Day, Harry
Lindley, F. W.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Dennison, R.
Longbottom, A. W.
Sutton, J. E.


Duncan, C.
Lowth, T.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. fames H. (Derby)


England, Colonel A.
Lunn, William
Tinker, John Joseph


Forrest, W.
Mackinder, W.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Gardner, J. P.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Macquisten, F. A.
Whiteley, W.


Gillett, George M.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Montague, Frederick
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Griffiths, T. (Monmoulh, Pontypool)
Murnin, H.
Windsor, Waiter


Grundy, T. W
Naylor, T. E.



Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Oliver, George Harold
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Palln, John Henry
Major-General Sir Robert Hutchison and Major Owen.


Hardle, George D.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Apsley, Lord
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.


Albery, Irving James
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Betterton, Henry B.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Atholl, Duchess of
Bevan, S. J.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Geat'l)
Atkinson, C.
Blundell, F. N.


Amery, Rt Hon, Leopold C. M. S.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Balniel, Lord
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Hammersley, S. S.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Brass, Captain W.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Harrison, G. J. C.
Pitcher, G.


Briscoe, Richard George
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Power, Sir John Cecil


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Hastam, Henry C.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Hinderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxl'd, Henley)
Raine, Sir Walter


Buckingham, Sir H.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Reld, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)


Burman, J. B.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Campbell, E. T.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Cassels J. D.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Ropner, Major L.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Herbert, S. (York, N.R., Scar. & Wk'by)
Ruggies-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hilts, Major John Waller
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Cayzer, Maj.Sir Herbt.R.(Prtsmth.C)
Hilton, Cecil
Rye, F. G.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Salmon, Major I.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Chapman, Sir S.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J,
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Christie, J. A.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Clayton, G. C.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Savery, S. S.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Iveagh, Countess of
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mel.(Renfrew,W.)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Jones, Sir G. w. H.(Stoke New'gton)
Shepperson, E. W.


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ,, Belief)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Skelton, A. N.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Knox, Sir Alfred
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cooper, A. Duff
Lamb, J. Q.
Smithers, Waldron


Cope, Major Sir William
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Couper, J. B.
Loder, J. de V.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Lougher, Lewis
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vers
Storry-Deans, R.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Stuart. Hon. J (Moray and Nairn)


Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Galnsbro)
Lumley, L. R.
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Dalkeith, Earl of
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Davies, Maj. Geo.F. (Somerset,Yeovil)
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Macintyre, Ian
Templeton, W. P.


Eden, Captain Anthony
McLean, Major A.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Macmillan, Captain H.
Titchfleld, Major the Marquess of


Ellis, R. G.
Mac Robert, Alexander M.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Erskina, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Maltland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Erskine, James Malcolm Montelth
Maltland, Sir Arthur D. Steet
Warrender, Sir Victor


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Margesson, Captain D.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Ford, Sir P. J.
Meyer, Sir Frank
Watts, Sir Thomas


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Wells, S. R.


Fraser, Captain Ian
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Moore, Lieut. Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Williams. A. M. (Cornvall, Northern)


Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Gates, Percy
Moreing, Captain A. H.
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Goff, Sir Park
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Eari


Gower, Sir Robert
Murchison, Sir Kenneth
Withers, John James


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph
Womersley, W. J.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Grotrian, H. Brent
Neville, Sir Reginald J.



Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Nuttall, Ellis
Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain Wallace.


Hacking, Douglas H.
Oakley, T.



Hamilton, Sir George
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)



Question, "That this Schedule, as amended, be the Seventh Schedule to the Bill," put, and agreed to.

It being after half-past Ten of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 12th December, successively to put forthwith the Questions on, any Amendments moved by the Government of which notice had been, given and the Questions necessary to bring the Committee stage to a conclusion.

Consequential Amendments made,

SIXTH SCHEDULE.—(Rules for ascertaining gains and losses of areas.)

Amendments made:

In page 63, line 15, after the word "authority," insert the words:
except that expenditure on any function for bile purpose of which a large burgh is included within a county shall, so far as such expenditure relates to the large burgh, be assumed to he expenditure by the town council of the burgh."—{The Lord Advocate.]

Consequential Amendment made.

SEVENTH SCHEDULE. —(Enactments repealed.)

Amendments made:

In page 64, line 6, column 1, leave out "c. 8," and insert instead thereof 83.

In column 2, after the word "Act, "insert" 1845."

In line 33, at the end, insert the words:


23 and 24 Vic., c. 85.
The Registrationof Births,Deaths, and Marriages(Scotland) Act, 1860.
In Section five the words and also to regulate, "to hereinafter repealed."

In page 65, line 7, column 3, after the word "Sections," insert the word "seven."

In line 18, column 3, at the end, insert the words "section sixty-six."

In line 23, column 3, after the word "Act," insert the words:
and the words from but neither the transfer,' to the end of the Sub-section.

In column 3, leave out lines 35 to 37, and insert instead thereof the words:
Sections sixty-nine and seventy.

In line 39, column 3,at the end, insert the words:
Sub-section (8) of Section seventy-three.

In page 66, leave out lines 9 and 10.

In column 3, leave out lines 15 to 18.

In column 3, leave out line 25 to 27.

In column 3, leave out lines 29 to 35, and insert instead thereof the words:
Section thirty-six.

In column 3, leave out line 38.

Leave out lines 39 to 42.

In page 67, line 20, at the end, insert the words:


"3 Edw.7. c.34.
The Town Conncils (Scotland) Act, 1903.
In Section seven the second paragraph."

In line 31, column 3, leave out the words "Sub-section (1)," and insert instead thereof the words:
Sub-sections (1), (2), and (6).

In page 69, line 12, leave out "(5)."— [The Lord Advocate.]

NEW SCHEDUULE.—(Audit of Accounts of County and Town Councils.)

1. The Secretary of State shall from time to time and for such period as he may determine appoint one or more fit persons (hereinafter referred to as "the auditor") to audit the accounts of each county council and of each town council and may remove any auditor. Intimation of the appointment of the auditor shall he given to the council concerned and to the auditor prior to the commencement of his term of office.

2. The county council or the town council, as the case may be, shall pay to the auditor such salary and allowances as shall from time to time be fixed by the council subject to the approval of the Secretary of State.

3. The Secretary of State may make Regulations either generally or in the case of any particular council as to the manner in which the audit of the accounts of a council shall he conducted by the auditor and any such Regulations may, in the case of a particular council where it appears to the Secretary of State expedient so to do, vary the times and periods specified in paragraphs 5, 6, 7, and 11 of this Schedule.

4. Every county council and town council shall make available for inspection by the auditor all books, deeds, contracts, vouchers, receipts, and other documents and papers (in this Schedule referred to as books and documents) which he may deem necessary, and shall give the auditor every reasonable facility for carrying out the audit, and the auditor, on giving not less than seven days' previous notice in writing, may require any person holding any hooks or documents or accountable there for to appear before him and to produce the same and to make and sign a declaration as to the correctness or identity of the same, and if such person neglects or refuses so to appear or to produce any such books, deeds, or documents or to make or sign such declaration he shall incur for every neglect or refusal a penalty not exceeding forty shillings, and if he falsely or corruptly makes or signs any such declaration, knowing the same to be untrue in any material particular, he shall be liable to the penalties inflicted on persons guilty of perjury.

5. Before each audit is completed the county clerk or town clerk, as the case may he, shall, after receiving from the auditor intimation of the time and place hereinafter mentioned, give at least fourteen days' public notice in such manner as the Secretary of State may prescribe: (a) of the deposit of the abstract of accounts required by this Schedule;(b) of the time and place at which the auditor will attend for the purpose of receiving objections with respect to the accounts as hereinafter provided; and (c) of the name and address of the auditor.

6. An abstract in duplicate of the accounts duly made up, balanced, and signed in such manner as the Secretary of State may prescribe shall be deposited in the office of the council, and be open between the hours
of eleven forenoon and three afternoon on any week day, other than Saturday, and between the hours of eleven forenoon and one afternoon on Saturday, to the inspection of all ratepayers within the county or within the burgh, as the case may be, for seven clear days before the date notified as aforesaid, and all such persons shall be at liberty to take copies of or extracts from the same without any fee, and any officer of the council duly appointed in that behalf refusing to allow inspection thereof shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding five pounds.

7. Any ratepayer may make any objection to such accounts or any part thereof and shall transmit the same and the grounds thereof in writing to the auditor and a copy thereof to the officer concerned and to the county clerk or town clerk, as the case may he, two clear days before the time notified as aforesaid, and any ratepayer may be present at the time and place notified as aforesaid, and may support any objection made by him as hereinbefore provided either by himself or by any other ratepayer, and the auditor, if so requested, shall at the same time hear any representation which may be made to him on behalf of the council or officer concerned in regard to such objection.

8. if it shall appear to any auditor acting in pursuance of this Schedule that any payment is in his opinion contrary to law and should be disallowed or that any sum which in his opinion ought to have been is not brought into account by any person, whether such payment or failure to account has been made matter of objection or not, he shall, by an interim report under his hand, report thereon to the Secretary of State setting forth the grounds of his opinion as aforesaid, and the Secretary of State shall cause such interim report to be intimated to the objector, if any, to the officer or other person affected thereby, and to the council concerned, and shall consider any statement in writing which may he made to him thereon by or on behalf of any party to whom such intimation was given within fourteen days of the date of such intimation, and after such further inquiry as he may think fit the Secretary of State shall decide all questions raised by such interim report and shall disallow all illegal payments and surcharge the same on the person or persons making them or authorising them to be made, and shall allow all sums which ought to have been but have not been brought into account.

Provided that before deciding any question raised by an interim report, the Secretary of State may, on the application of the auditor or of any party to whom the interim report requires to be intimated as aforesaid, and shall, if so directed by either division of the Court of Session state a case on any question of law arising on the interim report for the opinion of either division of the Court of Session, and the procedure in the stated case shall be such as may he prescribed by Act of Sederunt.

9. If the Secretary of State is satisfied that the person making the illegal payment,
or authorising it to be made, or failing to bring the sum into account, acted reasonably, or in the belief that his action was authorised by law, or that the payment was-made, or the failure took place under such circumstances as to make it fair and equitable that a disallowance or surcharge should not be made, the Secretary of State shall abstain from making a disallowance or surcharge.

10. Every sum determined by the Secretary of State under this Schedule to be due from any person shall be paid by such, person to the council within fourteen days after such determination has been intimated to him, and if such sum is not so paid it shall be the duty of the auditor to recover the same, and the council shall reimburse him for his expenses, including a reasonable allowance for his time in so far as not recovered from the person surcharged.

11. Within fourteen days after the completion of the audit or, as the case may be, after any question raised under an interim report by an auditor has been determined as aforesaid the auditor shall report on the accounts audited, and shall certify on each duplicate abstract thereof the amount in words at length of the expenditure so audited and allowed, and further that all the Regulations with respect to the accounts have been complied with; and that he has ascertained by the audit the correctness of the accounts. He shall forthwith send one duplicate abstract of the accounts to the council and the other duplicate abstract to, the Secretary of State, provided that if the Secretary of State shall so determine such abstract may come in place of and render unnecessary a return of the receipts and expenditure of the council in pursuance of the Local Taxation Returns (Scotland) Act, 1881. The auditor shall also send to the accountant of the Scottish Education Department (in this Schedule referred to as the Department) a copy of the abstract of the accounts relating to education of every county council and of the town council of every burgh being a county of a city with a report and certificate thereon as aforesaid.

12. The council shall cause the certified duplicate abstract of accounts sent to them as aforesaid to be deposited in their office for at least fourteen clear days and a notice to be published once weekly for at least two successive weeks in one or more of the newspapers circulating in the county or the burgh of the time and place during which the said abstract shall be open to the inspection of all ratepayers within the county or within the burgh, as the case may be.

13. Where any surcharge has been made as hereinbefore provided or the auditor has made any report (other than an interim report) respecting the accounts or the receipts and expenditure of the council, the Secretary of State may require the council to cause such public notice as he may direct to be given of the surcharge or report and in case of default in such publication the Secretary of State may cause such notice to be given, and the cost of such notice to the amount certified by the Secretary of State shall he a debt clue from the council to His-
Majesty and the county clerk or town clerk, as the case may be, shall be liable in case of such default in such notice being given to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds.

14. In the application of this Schedule to the accounts relating to education of a county council or of a town council of a burgh being a county of a city the following modifications and provisions shall have effect:

(a) References in paragraphs 8, 9, and 10 to the Secretary of State shall be construed as references to the Scottish Education Department;
(b) Notwithstanding anything in this Schedule—

(i) The accountant of the Department may also, by demand in writing, require the production before him of all the accounts of any such council relating to education and of all books and documents which he may deem necessary for the purpose of examining the said accounts, and shall have the same powers as the auditor with reference to requiring the appearance before him of any person, the production of any books or documents and declarations as to the same, and the provisions of paragraph 4 of the Schedule so far as relating to penalties for neglect or refusal or making an untrue declaration shall apply as in the case of a requirement by the auditor;
(ii) If it shall appear to the accountant of the Department that any payment included in the said accounts is in his opinion contrary to law or that any sum which in his opinion ought to have been is not brought into account by any person he shall report thereon to the Depart-

ment, setting forth the grounds of his opinion, and the Department shall cause such report to be intimated to the officer of the council or other person concerned with the payment or the failure to bring into account and also to the council, and shall give such officer, person, or council an opportunity of submitting representations thereon, and if the Department agree with the accountant they shall cause intimation to he given to the council and to the officer or other person concerned and also to the auditor that in the event of any expenditure of the same nature as any such payment as aforesaid being incurred by the council after the date of such intimation or of any similar failure by the council to bring any sum into account after such date it shall be the duty of the auditor to make an interim report with respect thereto;

In this paragraph the expression "accountant of the Department" has the meaning assigned to it in Section twenty-three of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1908.

15. For the purposes of this Schedule any ratepayer within a burgh shall as respects accounts of a county council relating to a function for the purposes of which that burgh is included within the county, be deemed to be a ratepayer within the county. —[The Lord Advocate.]

Brought up and read the First, and Second time.

Question put, "That the Schedule be added to the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 194; Noes, 91.

Division No. 234.]
AYES.
[10.44 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cayzer, Maj.SIr Herbt. R.(Prtsmth.S.)
Ford, Sir P. J.


Albery, Irving James
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Forrest, W.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Chapman, Sir s.
Foster, Sir Harry S.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Fraser, Captain Ian


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Christie, J. A.
Fremantle, Lieut. Colonel Francis E.


Apsley, Lord
Clayton, G. C.
Gadle, Lieut.-Col Anthony


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Gates, Percy


Atholl, Duchess of
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Goff, Sir Park


Atkinson, C.
Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Gower, sir Robert


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)


Balniel, Lord
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cooper, A. Duff
Grotrian, H. Brent


Betterton, Henry B.
Cope, Major Sir William
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Bevan, S. J.
Couper, J. B.
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Blundell, F. N.
Courtauld, Major J S.
Hacking, Douglas H.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Hamilton, Sir George


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Bowyer, Capt. G E. W.
Crookshank,Cpt.H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Harrison, G. J. C.


Brass, Captain W.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Davies. Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset.Yeovil)
Harvey, Major S E. (Devon, Totnes)


Briscoe, Richard George
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Haslam, Henry C.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Henderson,Capt.R.R. (Oxf'd, Henley)


Brooke. Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian


Broun-Lindsay. Major H.
Ellis, R. G.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Buckingham, Sir H.
England, Colonel A.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.


Burman, J. B.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weiton-s.-M.)
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Campbell, E. T.
Erskine, James Malcolm Montelth
Herbert,S.(York. N.R.,Scar. & Wh'by)


Cassels, J. D.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Hills, Major John Waller


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Hilton, Cecil


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Fermoy, Lord
Hope, Capt. A O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Skelton, A. N.


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Moreing, Captain A. H.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Smithers, Waldron


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney,N.)
Murchison, Sir Kenneth
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Nelson, Sir Frank
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Iveagh, Countess of
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Storry-Deans, R.


King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Kinioch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Knox, Sir Alfred
Nuttall, Ellis
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Lamb, J. Q
Oakley, T.
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Templeton, W. P.


Little, Dr. E. Graham
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell


Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Titchfield, Ma|or the Marquess of


Loder, J. de V.
Pilcher, G.
Wallace. Captain D. I.


Lougher, Lewis
Power, Sir John Cecil
Ward, Lt.-Col.A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Price, Major C. W. M.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Lumley, L. R.
Ralne, Sir Walter
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Reld, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. V.
Watts, Sir Thomas


Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Wayland Sir William A.


MacIntyre, Ian
Ropner, Major L.
Wells, S. R.


McLean, Major A.
Ruggies-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple


Macmillan, Captain H.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemoth
Willlams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Macquisten, F. A.
Rye, F. G
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


MacRobert, Alexander M.
Salmon, Major I.
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Withers, John James


Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Womersley, W. J.


Meyer, Sir Frank
Sanderson, Sir Frank
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Savery, S. S.



Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl.(Renfrew,W.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Shepperson, E. W.
Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain Margesson.


Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Sinclair,Col.T (Queen's Univ., Belfast)



NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Palln, John Henry


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hirst, G. H.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Ammon, Charles George
Hollins, A.
Potts, John S.


Barnes, A.
Hore-Bellsha, Leslie
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Barr, J.
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Riley, Ben


Batey, Joseph
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Ritson, J.


Bellamy, A.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall,St.Ives)


Benn, Wedgwood
Jones, Morg (Caerphilly)
Scrymgeour, E.


Bennett, William (Battcrsea, South)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Scurr, John


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Kelly, W. T.
Sexton, James


Broad, F. A.
Kennedy, T.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Bromfield, William
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Shield, G. W.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Kirkwood, D.
Shinwell, E.


Buchanan, G.
Lansbury, George
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Charleton, H. C.
Lawrence, Susan
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Cluse, W. S.
Lawson, John James
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Compton, Joseph
Lindley, F. W.
Snell, Harry


Day, Harry
Longbottom, A. W.
Stephen, Campbell


Dennison, R.
Lowth, T.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Duncan, C.
Lunn, William
Sutton, J. E.


Gardner, J. P.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Mackinder, W.
Tinker, John Joseph


Gillett, George M.
MacLaren, Andrew
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson nnd Colne)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Montague, Frederick
Williams. C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Grundy, T. W.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Murnin, H.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Naylor, T. E.
Windsor, Walter


Hardle, George D.
Oliver, George Harold



Hayday, Arthur
Owen, Major G.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Hayes and Mr. Whiteley.

Whereupon, the CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report the Bill, as amended, to the House, pursuant to the Order of the House of 12th December.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday, 4th March, and to be printed. [Bill 61.]

Orders of the Day — PRIVATE BUSINESS.

DERBY CORPORATION BILL (By Order).

The following Notice of Motion stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. RYE:
That it be an instruction to the Committee on the Bill to leave out Part VIII and Clause 11 of Part II, and Clause 20 of Part IV.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I want to raise -a point of Order in connection with the Instruction about to be moved. Standing Order 207 says:
In cases where the Second or Third Reading of a Private Bill, or the consideration of a Bill as amended by the Committee, or any proposed Clause or Amendment, or any Motion relating to a Private Bill, is opposed, the same shall be postponed until the day on which The House shall next sit or such further day as the Chairman of Ways and Means may determine.
Provided that any such opposed Private Business set down at half-past seven may be arranged in such order as the Chairman of Ways and Means may determine.
Where any such Opposed Private Business is set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, and is disposed of, any Motion contingent directly or otherwise thereon may, with the assent of the Chair, be considered and disposed of at the same sitting.
The Bill to which this Motion relates was put down in the ordinary way for Second Reading. There was ultimately objection raised, and a day was named for the Second Reading in the ordinary way, in accordance with the Standing Order at 7.30 p.m. There was on the Order Paper an Instruction to the Committee which in the ordinary way would have been moved following the Second Reading Debate. The Second Reading took place in accordance with the decision of the Chairman of Ways and Means. The Second Reading was passed. Out of six names on the Paper with regard to the Instruction, not one hon. Member was present, but another hon. Member rose to move the Instruction standing in the name of other hon. Members. It was ruled that no Notice was on the Paper in his name, and, therefore, the Instruction could not be moved, whereupon the Bill, having passed this House, was in the ordinary way sent to a Committee upstairs.
The Chairman of Ways and Means gives a further opportunity for this Instruction to be moved. I have looked up every precedent in connection with Private Bill legislation to try if possible to find any that justifies this amazing procedure. I find none. The nearest approach is in 1914, when the then
Speaker, on a Bill reported to the House, gave a ruling that an Instruction could then be moved on Third Reading. That is the nearest precedent that I can find. I, therefore, want to submit to you two things. First, supposing this was the ordinary procedure of the House, and a Motion in my name was on the Paper, and by either the accident of business or agreement between the Government and the Opposition, I am not in my place when this Motion is reached. A few minutes after—not a day nor a week—I arrive in the House and ask permission from you to move the Motion standing in my name. I know of no precedent that would allow that to be done. That is exactly the situation in connection with the Motion before the House, and I ask your ruling as to whether it is in order.

Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas) has kindly given me notice that he was going to raise this point of Order, and, as far as I can judge, he desires me to give a Ruling as to whether the Instruction on the Paper to-day is in order or not. The right hon. Gentleman has referred me to Standing Order No. 207, relating to Private Business, and I think he really wants to draw my attention to the last paragraph in the Order, but that seems to me to refer to rather a different matter. It is to the effect that by the consent of the Chair a Motion contingent directly or otherwise on a Bill which has just received either Second or Third Reading can be moved, entirely at the discretion or with the consent of the Chair. That does not arise in this case. This is another thing altogether. The question is whether it can be moved immediately after Second Reading or Third Reading of the Bill. That was what was done according to this Standing Order on the previous occasion.
11.0 p.m.
With regard to the other matter, whether this Instruction is in order to-day, in my view the Chairman of Ways and Means has acted quite in order in putting this Motion down for this evening, because it appears to me to be entirely within his discretion to do so or not as he thinks fit. My Ruling is very largely influenced by a precedent which occurred as long ago as 1903 on the London County Council Tramways and
Improvements Bill. That was a very similar case to the present one. The Instructions appeared on the Paper on the same day on which the Bill received Second Reading, were postponed, and were put down at a later date, a week afterwards, in exactly the same manner as this Motion has been put down. That case went further in that an Instruction was on the Paper which had not been put down on the same day on which the Second Reading took place. Therefore, it seems to me that these proceedings are entirely in order.

Mr. THOMAS: With great respect, I knew also of that Ruling, the precedent which justifies the statement you have now made, and I want respectfully to draw your attention to two other points. The Standing Order to which I referred pre-supposes the disposal of business connected with one subject. The words are quite clear and definite:
Any Motion contingent directly or otherwise thereon may, with the assent of the Chair, be considered and disposed of at the same meeting.
I submit that the only intention of that Standing Order is, always providing that there is time to dispose of all matters contingent to the subject before the House. That is my first point. With regard to the precedent you have mentioned, I want to submit that there is a difference between the two cases. In the case of the Tramways Bill the Instruction was in connection with something that had not previously been before the House, and therefore the Ruling was based on the assumption that the House of Commons ought to have the right to give an instruction on an entirely new issue. In connection with this Bill, I want to submit two things to you. First, that the Blackpool Corporation Bill, 1926, and the Newcastle Corporation Bill, 1928, contained similar Clauses and ultimately passed the House, and on the night before this Bill was up for Second Reading, we had the Chester Corporation Bill, with precisely the same Clauses in it. I submit to you, therefore, that it would not be on all fours with those cases if we were to allow the House to discuss something that has already passed the Second Reading and has been referred to a Committee upstairs.

Mr. SPEAKER: With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's interpretation of the Standing Order, it merely means that an Instruction contingent directly or otherwise on the Second or Third Reading may be disposed of at the same sitting. It does not say "shall" be. It may be taken at a later date. With regard to the other point of the right hon. Gentleman, it appears to me a matter as to the merits of the Instruction that has been put down and not as to the point of Order.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: As this is an important matter, I hope that you will not consider that any attempt to have it straightened out is a waste of time. May I submit a point with due respect. I have looked up the precedents, but there is something in this matter which has not cropped up before. May I draw your attention to the fact that when the Second Reading was given to this Bill, the Instruction was not postponed. So far as I have been able to get from the OFFICIAL REPORT what actually took place, no attempt was made to move the Instruction, and it is perfectly clear from our Standing Orders when under these circumstances an Instruction may be moved. But what happened the other night? The Bill went through its Second Reading. An hon. Member at once rose and tried to move the Instruction. He was not in order, because I understand that although his name was on the Paper which was originally handed in at the Table, he was No. 7, and only six names can go on. From the point of view of Parliamentary procedure this is surely the situation. An attempt was made to move this Instruction and although six names were on the Paper, none were present and the opportunity had to go. What really is of substance in the point that we are asking you with due respect to settle is that an opportunity, the ordinary Parliamentary opportunity was not taken by those who wore in a position to take it, and that the effect of setting up this Instruction again and putting it on the Order Paper is that a lost opportunity can be redeemed. I submit that this is a violation of the practises of this House. If we miss our opportunities at any stage of a Bill, we have lost them and they cannot be set up again under any other Standing Order. So far as the letter of the law is
concerned, I associate myself with great respect with your ruling, but from the point of Parliamentary practice, I submit that this is a case which ought not to be given in favour of this instruction now being in Order.

Mr. HANNON: On that point of Order, may I ask in reference to the case in which a number of hon. Members attached their names to an instruction which is put on the Paper in the first instance, and subsequently, under an arrangement which applies in this House in which six names only can appear, and the person whose name is seventh rises in his place to move the instruction, is it competent for him to do so, his name not being on the Paper?

Mr. SPEAKER: I only have to deal with the particular Order Paper of the day. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition that this is a very important case, and for that reason I looked very carefully into it before coming to a decision. It is only because I found a precedent almost exactly on all fours with this case, which in my judgment was an even stronger case, that I decided to give the ruling I do now. The question raised by the Leader of the Opposition is entirely in the discretion of the Chairman of Ways and Means.

Mr. THOMAS: The difference between the case you, Sir, have put and the case submitted by my right hon. Friend is, that you yourself called for the Instruction. The Instruction was on the Order Paper, and you yourself called for those responsible for it. There was no response to your call; and we ask where is the precedent for the ruling that someone who is prevented, for any reason, from exercising his Parliamentary right is given another opportunity of doing it. In the case you have quoted, the Instruction did not appear until afterwards. In this case, it was on the Order Paper, you exercised your right by calling for those responsible, there was no response, and another opportunity is now given. That is the new precedent that we submit to you.

Mr. SPEAKER: I quite understand the point which the right hon. Gentleman raises, but the only consideration I have to give to it is whether it is in accord-
ance with the Standing Orders of the House, and I do not see that there is anything contrary to the Standing Orders on this occasion. There, again, it is entirely in the discretion of the Chairman of Ways and Means.

Mr. THOMAS: I am sorry to trouble you again. [Interruption.] Members on that side of the House are as jealous of the prerogative of Parliamentary procedure as we are, and therefore I want to submit this point. If the existing procedure deprives a Member of a Parliamentary opportunity, something may be said for the new procedure, but want to put this further point. First, you having given an opportunity, which is not taken advantage of, notwithstanding no one being available to take advantage of it, precisely the same Instruction could be moved on the Report stage of this Bill or on the Third Reading, to recommit the Bill, and yet the new procedure is laid down that a further opportunity is given.

Mr. SPEAKER: That is so. A further opportunity can be had on the Report stage. My point is that it is not contrary to the Standing Orders of the House. That is really the only point that I have to consider.

Mr. THOMAS: There is no point in further challenging the ruling that you have given. I content myself by entering on the records our protests against this unusual procedure.

Mr. RYE: I beg to move, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to leave out Part VIII and Clause 11 of Part II and Clause 20 of Part IV."
If hon. Members will refer to the Instruction they will see that objection is made first to the clauses dealing with Town Planning then to Clause II and thirdly to Clause 20 of the Bill. As regards the first, I would like to remind the House that in the Town Planning Act of 1925, except as regards towns containing buildings of architectural, historic and artistic interest, there is no power whatsoever enabling any local authority to bring in and apply a town planning scheme to a developed area. A Clause was however inserted in that Act enabling a local authority to bring in a town planning scheme where it could be shown that such a scheme was necessary for the protection and preservation
of towns possessing buildings of architectural, historical and artistic interest. That clearly shows that at that time Parliament must have carefully considered whether or not it was advisable to apply such a scheme to a developed area. In 1909, which is the date of the first Town Planning Act, and again in 1919, which is the date of the second Act, it was laid down that town planning should only apply to undeveloped areas. It was never contemplated in 1909, 1919 or 1925 that it would he right, fair, or proper to apply these schemes to the buildings in areas such as the town of Derby, and I suggest that it would be wrong of this House to agree to the extension of a principle which was clearly considered at the time of the passing of the various Town Planning Acts and a decision then come to that it should only apply to undeveloped areas or, I would call them, virgin territory.
I would like also to remind the House that the Derby Corporation have already got ample statutory powers to deal with street widenings under the Public Health Acts or the Road Improvement Act of 1925, and if they want to carry out any large improvement scheme they can do what the London County Council did in the case of the Kingsway improvement, and what the Westminster City Council are doing today with their Milbank scheme, that is, they can apply for a private Act. In a matter of that kind there is seldom any difficulty in obtaining the necessary powers. But that does not seem to be sufficient for the Derby Corporation, for they have inserted in a General Powers Bill an omnibus Bill containing 69 Clauses—special Clauses—to enable them to bring into force a town planning scheme for the developed area in the Town of Derby. I would specially draw attention to the fact that under the Town Planning Act of 1925 it is expressly provided in paragraph (2) of Part II of the Third Schedule.
that land forming part of any path, garden or pleasure ground, or required for the amenities of any house shall not be converted for any town planning,
That is the Act of 1925, but that is not sufficient for the Corporation of Derby. They now ask that Parliament should give them the right to repeal so far as their town is concerned the protection
which was considered necessary in 1925. for undeveloped areas.
I would point out the disadvantages of town planning when applied to developed areas. In the first place, directly a Resolution to bring in a town planning scheme is passed, a clog is placed upon the development of property in the area. Until the scheme itself is brought into being—and it sometimes takes five years or oven more—the development of the district is held up. It is true that it is possible for an owner to appeal to the Ministry of Health, but that obviously must make for delay, and it seems to me to be obvious that in all these eases the probability is that the Ministry of Health are more than likely to say that they cannot interfere and cannot give consent, pending the preparation of the actual scheme. Moreover, if anyone who is desirous of building or developing decides, rather than have delay, to go on with the work, and if thereafter the class of building that has been put up, or the alteration that has been made, is prohibited by the scheme, the owner has to pull down his building or take away his alteration, without getting any compensation whatever. I suggest that however reasonable a town planning scheme may be for an undeveloped area, it is certainly not going to be of benefit in a developed area such as the town of Derby.
It may be said that the people of Derby want this, but, even so, I would ask the House to consider the effect of a town planning scheme on a built-on area. It is true that under Section 10 of the Town Planning Act, 1925, compensation in certain events can be obtained for injury arising from town planning, but there is no compensation in the events referred to in Section 11, Sub-section (2), of the Act, or there may not be, because it rests with the Ministry of Health, to a great extent, in cases where the local authority under their scheme, have decided upon the space to be occupied by buildings, the height of such buildings, the space between buildings, and even the character and uses of the building. Is it fair, where the authorities have prescribed the height, and have said to the owner in a town who was entitled to go up to the full height allowed by the bylaws, that in the future the height should be fixed at, say, 50 feet, and having in
consequence reduced the value of the site, there should be no compensation? That is the position under the Town Planning Act.
Again, there is the question of uses. It, may be that at present premises are used for a certain purpose, and it is true that if that purpose were prohibited under a town planning scheme the owner would not be called upon to pull down the premises. But suppose they are burnt down; suppose that, owing to their age and state of repair, they have to be taken down and rebuilt, and suppose they are in an area which has been declared under a town planning scheme to be a residential area. What is the position of the owner? He cannot build them up again as a shop or for use for factory or business purposes, and therefore he is at a serious disadvantage, and, under the Town Planning Act, 1925, he is debarred from claiming any compensation. That is what the Corporation of Derby want to do to the citizens of that town. A great question of principle is here involved. It is not right and proper in my judgment for the Corporation to bring in this question of town planning. It should he dealt with by a Government Measure, brought in by the Government, so that public attention may be focussed on the question, that those who are likely to be affected may have consideration, and that the matter may be thoroughly investigated. I do not think that this is a matter which should be dealt with as part of an omnibus Bill containing no fewer than 69 Clauses.
I want now to deal with the question of Clause 11. It will enable the Derby Corporation, after they have acquired property by means of the intended Act of Parliament, and for a specific purpose, and when they have found that they have surplus lands instead of selling or letting on building lease, as is the usual practice, to retain them and to build shops, factories, and warehouses, and to let those premises. If that is not municipal trading and speculation in trade by municipalities, I do not know what is. In my opinion that is pure Socialism. It must necessarily make a direct appeal to hon. and right hon. Members above the Gangway opposite, and I can readily imagine that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for
Derby (Mr. Thomas) has savoured this morsel, and rolled it round his mouth. I am not surprised he is here to support this delightful exhibition of Socialism. I come now to Clause 20, which will enable the Corporation in the erection of municipal buildings to construct as part of those buildings shops, and strange to say, residential chambers. Where is it going to end? Is this House going to say to municipalities: "Oh, yes, you can have residential chambers. You can have service fiats. You can have whist clubs if you like." Surely the time has come when we ought to refuse to accept these proposals, and to say that this trading in shops, this trading in residential flats, this carrying on of municipal enterprises at the cost of the ratepayers is not at all a benefit to the community.
While on that subject I may say that the Derby Corporation have already indulged in some of these municipal undertakings, for I find on reference to a local paper that they have a municipal golf course. I am not surprised to see that there has been a loss in the year 1926, and again in 1927, and again in 1928 on that golf course. I am not surprised also to find that the elective auditors have expressed a very strong opinion that this municipal golf course should be done away with. That is not the only thing that the elective auditors have done by way of criticism when dealing with the accounts for the financial year ending 31st March last. They state that overtime has been paid to firemen on ordinary duty, that money is badly invested, that private firms collect corporation rents, that cash is disbursed without receipts, and that free tramway travel is excessive. This is the Derby Corporation who now come forward with this delightful Measure containing these Clauses which are pure Socialism. I hope that this House will refuse to countenance this.

Mr. THOMAS: Will you give us the date of that report?

Mr. RYE: That report was issued on the accounts for the year ending 31st March, 1928.

Mr. THOMAS: That was before there was a Labour majority.

Mr. RYE: That may be so, but, assuming that members of the Labour
party were not responsible for that, they are responsible for this Bill. That is sufficient for me and it satisfies me that this proposal should not be approved. I hope the House will not be led away by precedents. It has been stated in a brief that has been sent out in support of the Bill that there are precedents in its favour, that Town Planning Clauses were inserted in the Blackpool Corporation Bill and in the Newcastle-on-Tyne Corporation Bill, and that those Bills were placed on the Statute Book. Suppose that to be the case and that such Bills slipped through the House, there is no reason why we should accept this further precedent. I would quote to the House what was submitted a short time ago in connection with the Local Government Bill by the right hon. and learned Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Sir Leslie Scott). He said that the mere fact that there were precedents for things which he considered to be dangerous, was all the more reason why we should not allow any further precedents to go through. For all these reasons I beg to move the Instruction to the Committee.

Sir JOHN POWER: I beg to second the Motion. I am not very much surprised that this Bill received a Second Reading. I have the most profound admiration for the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas), and I always observe that when he is concerned with a Measure, somehow or other, things seem to go in his favour, such little things as the Time Table of the House, and the people who are opposed to his Bills are taken by surprise. His influence is so great that, even if he is not in the House, or just round the corner, things go his way. I expect that we shall be told of various precedents for these particular Clauses. I agree with the last speaker that the acceptance of the existing precedents is no entire guide for the future. If everything that has happened in this world is to justify a similar act, then all the evil things that have taken place have an immediate justification.
I object to this Bill very strongly, because I am a Conservative. It is a creed of our party that we object to municipal trading. Municipal trading, to my mind, is very unfair. It simply means that a municipality is able to compete against its own ratepayers with the
money of the ratepayers. That does not seem to me to be fair, because if the municipality makes a loss, as, unfortunately, frequently happens, it calls upon the very people with whom it has been competing, to make good the loss. That is not fair. The reason why municipal trading does fail is because of the lack of anyone who is vitally interested in the success of the enterprise. The business is carried on by officials, who do not share in the success and do not share in the failure. There may be much to be said in favour of certain kinds of municipal trading; by that I mean trades which only require ordinary industry in order to make a success. They do not require particular foresight and imagination beyond those qualities that go to the making of success in business. What I object to in this Bill is not that the Derby Corporation are not going in for what may by any manner of means be called ordinary trading. They propose to enter into what is called speculative building. Speculative building is a very necessary thing in our civilisation, but it is universally known that it contains great risks as well as great profits. That is not exactly the kind of municipal trading in which we expect to find a corporation indulging. If they are to take powers to engage in speculative building, why not take powers to indulge in speculation on the Stock Exchange. I say most emphatically that the chances of success on the Stock Exchange are perhaps greater than in speculative building.
This corporation takes power to borrow money and indulge in this and other kinds of activities, and as long as £10 out of every £100 borrowed is devoted to municipal purposes it can devote the other £90 to speculative building enterprises. It does so in a peculiarly favourable position. The speculative builder has a certain brake on his activities, a certain check. The ordinary speculative builder has to finance his scheme, he has to raise the money for it. He has to put his scheme before financiers, and while they are prepared to take what they consider reasonable risks, nevertheless, they do exercise their judgment and if the scheme seems to be so wild and improbable that they cannot support it he does not get his money. There is a certain check on his activities. But here there is no check. The corporation asks for money ostensibly
for municipal purposes, and when they have obtained the money—and they will obtain it because behind the corporation stand the ratepayers—they can indulge in any wild cat schemes they choose, and there is no one to say them nay. If it is a success there is no one to give them credit; if it is a failure there are few to say anything about it, because we know how municipalities manage these affairs. It is long after the event that the ratepayers learn that a loss has been made and then it is to the interest of everyone concerned to minimise it as far as may be; and in any case the ratepayer is too busy endeavouring to make his own living, in competition with his own municipality, to give it much thought. I support the Motion because I do not believe that the citizens of Derby if they had known what their corporation proposed to do would have supported it, and it is the duty of this House to see that the citizens, no matter what the corporation may decide or how they have arrived at the decision, are not exploited in this way.

Mr. THOMAS: If any justification is needed for the protest made from this side of the House at the extraordinary procedure this evening it is to be found in the two Second Reading speeches which we have just heard. With the greatest respect, I say that a very serious innovation in Parliamentary procedure is taking place. We have, I repeat, heard two Second Reading speeches in circumstances unprecedented in Parliamentary procedure. I refuse to answer the insult of the hon. Member who seconded the Motion. He may have his views as to the intelligence of the electors of Derby; they may not be so enlightened as those of Wimbledon, they may not be so businesslike, but I would remind him and the House that the Derby Chamber of Commerce, not composed of Labour people, support the Bill and the Clauses with which we are now dealing. I was amazed to find the seventh name on the Order Paper, that of the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon), who I am sure will enlighten the House as to his views. It will be interesting to hear the objections from Birmingham, which contemplates similar powers. As far as the mover of the Motion is concerned, the Bolshevism and Socialism in this Bill—all that has been
pointed out—not only were sought for by the Blackpool Tory Corporation and the Chester Corporation, but these things were not then of sufficient importance to receive the attention of either the mover or the seconder of the Motion. Neither of them was at that time in his place; neither of them then took any notice; neither of them was concerned with the great moral principles that they are laying down to-night. I ask the House to observe that significant fact. Notwithstanding their indifference, imagine the reflection that they are casting upon their colleagues who sat upstairs, who heard all the evidence and arguments, and said that in their judgment—the Tory members, their colleagues—this Clause ought to he sanctioned. What is even more important is that the Ministry of Health said that the Clause was in strict accord with the recommendations of the Ministry.
The short point that I want to put is this: The procedure of this House lays it down that points such as have been raised to-night are points for the Committee stage upstairs. Everyone knows that there is no more impartial body than the Committee upstairs. Not only is a locus given to every Member but he can argue the pros and cons of any subject. Yet to-night we are asked to say that a Committee of our fellow Members, a Committee selected front all parties in this House, a Committee trusted by this House, is incapable of giving an impartial judgment on the matters referred to in the Motion to-night. And in order to influence the Douse the sins of the Derby Town Council are dragged in. It is unworthy of the hon. Member who moved this Motion. He ought to know, and he does know perfectly well, that anything to which he has drawn attention can be and is the subject of investigation and has no bearing whatever upon the body that is responsible for the promotion of this Bill. There is evidence of that. My own colleague in the representation of Derby, who is a Conservative, will be able to tell the House, as I have told it, that, whatever their views may be, this Bill represents the considered judgment of all political parties in Derby.

Mr. RYE: Does the right hon. Gentleman seriously suggest that the Bill repre-
seats the considered opinion of all political parties in Derby?

Mr. THOMAS: I not only say that but repeat it. My colleague on the other side of the House will endorse that statement.

Mr. RYE: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that there was a unanimous opinion at the meeting under the Borough Funds Act?

Mr. THOMAS: The ordinary statutory meeting was held in accordance with the procedure under the law, and the Bill was not only endorsed, but almost unanimously endorsed. I go beyond that, and say that a special meeting of the Chamber of Trade and Chamber of Commerce was held and the Bill was there endorsed.

Mr. RYE: But the right hon. Gentleman's statement was that there was unanimous opinion on the Bill among all political parties in Derby.

Mr. THOMAS: It would be absurd to assume that on any Bill of this character there would be complete unanimity in any municipality. I said that, so far as the political parties in Derby were concerned, they all endorsed the Bill. Of course there would be a minority of individuals. The hon. Member has been sufficiently long in the House to know that it would be absurd to claim absolute unanimity for any Bill of this character. We believe in democracy, however, and, I repeat, that there is a majority in favour of the Bill of all political parties. My final point is this. I ask the House to observe what we are asked to omit. What is it to which the hon. Members who have moved the Instruction object? A town planning scheme. Take almost any town in any part of the country; take, especially, any town in Lancashire, Yorkshire or the Midlands. Is there any Member of the House who will not agree that such a town is generally badly constructed making one wish for a, chance to start it all over again? Do not we all feel in going through almost any town to-day, that it must have been "rained down" and that there could have been no coherent plan in its construction? It is the duty of a municipality to look ahead and to endeavour to avoid these difficulties. That is all the Derby Corporation ask. That is all they want
to have decided before the Committee. That is all they ask this House to say. If there should be restrictions, if there should be bias, if there should be anything wrong, the Committee uptairs will examine it. For all these reasons, and, above all, for the safeguarding of a Committee of the House, I ask the House to reject the Motion.

Major-General Sir RICHARD LUCE: I wish to follow the lead of my colleague, the right hon. Gentleman the senior Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas). This Bill has received a Second Heading and there is no need to describe what it contains or the great advantages that are expected from it by the town of Derby. We are concerned merely with those Clauses against which the Instruction has been moved. As has been said, the Bill was approved on two occasions by the Corporation. On the first occasion, in a meeting of 59 members there was entire unanimity. At another meeting it was endorsed without any objection, though there were two abstentions. The Corporation at the time was composed of about equal numbers of Labour members and Municipal Association members but, in spite of that fact, there was a practically unanimous decision on both occasions. At no time have I received any protest against it from any individual constituent and, I believe, the right hon. Gentleman, my colleague in the representation of Derby, can say the same. During the whole of that time right up to the present no letter or verbal objection has come to me direct regarding this Bill. Therefore, I think it is definitely shown that it is the wish of the whole population, with a certain few exceptions which much occur in every case, that this Bill, with these Clauses, should be passed by this House.
With regard to the particular Clauses referred to, the most important one is that dealing with town planning. The original Town Planning Bill is now twenty years old, having been passed in 1909. There has been no alteration in it since that time, although there have been very great developments in regard to town planning. No one who seriously considers the matter can determine otherwise than that it is necessary now to have further powers if we are to make our towns what they ought to be.
Derby itself is a very old town—one of the oldest in the country. For many years it was a small town, but in the last thirty years it has grown extraordinarily rapidly. It is now totally unfit structurally to carry out the duties which it is necessary for a town of its size and importance to carry out. It is therefore necessary that a great deal should be done to it, and this Bill provides certain things which it is necessary to do. It is almost certain that that which is asked for now cannot be the final solution and it seems to me that anyone who looks to the future must do so on some definite basis and plan. Therefore, it must be agreed that a town planning scheme should not apply merely to undeveloped areas, but should be laid down so that the town may be developed in accordance with what it is necessary to make it a place fitted for the work which it has to do. There will, of course, in the near future be the great question of slum areas to be dealt with. Unless you have some definite plan to cover the whole ground of the work which is to be done in the alteration of the town, that slum work can never be thoroughly done. It is exceedingly likely that in any Bill which is brought in to deal with the slums it may be necessary to include some such

measures as are included in these Clauses of the Bill.

The fact has been referred to that similar Clauses exist in other Bills which have been passed during this Parliament. There is not a single one of these Clauses which are objected to that is not taken absolutely verbatim from one or other of the Bills which have been passed during recent years. Seeing that they have been so passed, it is absurd to think that they were passed carelessly by a House like the present one. They were passed deliberately, and not one word has been said to-night either by the Mover or the Seconder of the Motion to show that in any respect they have been found failing. There has been no protest from Newcastle or from Blackpool as to the effect of the Clauses which have been passed. They have apparently been working quite satisfactorily. As the hour is late, I think I have said enough to show that this is not a party question in Derby, but that it is a question of a Bill which is really required and that these Clauses are essential to the Bill.

Question put,
That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Derby Corporation Bill to leave out Part VIII and Clause 11 of Part II, and Clause 20 of Part IV.

The House divided: Ayes, 49; Noes, 100.

Division No. 235.]
AYES.
[11.56 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Henderson, Capt.R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Shaw,Lt.-Col. A. D. Mel. (Renfrew, w.)


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Hilton, Cecil
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Soweroy)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney,N).
Shepperson, E. W.


Atkinson, C.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Bevan, S. J.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Bowater, Cot. Sir T. Vanslttart
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph
Templeton, W. P.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Watts, Sir Thomas


Couper, J. B.
Pilcher, G.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Power, Sir John Cecil
Wells, S. R.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Price, Major C. W. M.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Fermoy, Lord
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'tt'y)



Ford, Sir P. J.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.ߞ


Gower, Sir Robert
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Mr. Rye and Mr. Hannon.


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)



NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Briscoe, Richard George
Compton, Joseph


Albery, Irving James
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Conway, Sir W. Martin


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Bromfield, William
Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)


Ammon, Charles George
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Day, Harry


Barnes, A
Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Dennison, R.


Barr, J.
Buchanan, G.
Duncan, C.


Batey, Joseph
Burman, J. B.
England, Colonel A.


Bellamy, A.
Campbell, E. T.
Fraser, Captain Ian


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Cayester, sir C. (Chester, City)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Charieton, H. C.
Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Clayton, G. C.
Gardner, J. P.


Gillett, George M.
Lunn, William
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Shield, G. W.


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Mackinder, W.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfast)


Grundy, T. W.
MacLaren, Andrew.
Skelton, A. N.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
McLean, Major A.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Hayday, Arthur
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Smith, Rennle (Penistone)


Hayes, John Henry
Macmillan, Captain H.
Snell, Harry


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Stephen, Campbell


Hirst, G. H.
Margesson, Captain D.
Sutton, J. E.


Hollins, A.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Tinker, John Joseph


Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Murnin, H.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Whiteley, W.


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Oliver, George Harold
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Kelly, W. T.
Palln, John Henry
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Kennedy, T.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wilton, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Kirkwood, D
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Lamb, J. Q.
Potts, John S,
Windsor, Walter


Lansbury, George
Raine, Sir Walter
Womersley, W. J


Lawrence, Susan
Richardson, R, (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Lindley, F. W.
Ritson, J.



Loder, J. de V.
Saklatvala, Shapurji
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Longbottom, A. W.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Mr. J. H. Thomas and Major


Lougher, Lewis
Scrymgeour, E.
General Sir Richard Luce.


Lowth, T.
Scurr, John

Orders of the Day — ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACTS.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1926, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the urban district of Uttoxeter and parts of the rural districts of Uttoxeter and Cheadle, in the county of Stafford, which was presented on the 5th day of December, 1928, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1926, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the parish of Telscombe, in the rural district of Newhaven, in the administrative county of East Sussex, which was presented on the 6th day of December, 1928, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1926, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of part of the rural district of Strood, in the county of Kent, which was presented on the 11th day of December, 1928, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1926, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of parts of the rural districts of Tonbridge and Sevenoaks, in the county of Kent, and parts of the rural districts of Uckfield and East Grinstead, in the administrative county of East Sussex, which was presented on the 11th day of December, 1928, he approved

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1926, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of part of the rural district of Fylde, in the county palatine of Lancaster, which was presented on the 13th day of December, 1928, he approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1926, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the burgh of Kilsyth, in the county of Stirling, which was presented on the 13th day of December, 1928, he approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1926, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, constituting the North West Midlands Electricity District and establishing and incorporating the North West Midlands Joint Electricity Authority, which was presented on the 19th day of December, 1928, be approved."—[Colonel Ashley.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Monday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Eight minutes after Twelve o'Clock.